GSO/Guilford Pols

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    

« Your liberal media | Main | The moment you were made for, commenters »

May 30, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Brod

Stammer indeed. Supporting only parts of the ACA is incoherent.

Want community rating, i.e. no pre-existing conditions? Fine, but then you need an individual mandate to prevent adverse selection and avoid a bad risk pool. And if you have an individual mandate, you need premium subsidies to keep insurance affordable for lower-income folks.

In other words, the three main elements of the ACA hang together. It's less crazy to advocate outright repeal than to single out community rating as the only part of the ACA you want to keep.

Andrew Brod

Thom Tillis's House hasn't voted on the bill yet, but the Senate wants to go in the other direction. Not only have they refused to expand Medicaid under the ACA, they want to cut Medicaid eligibility.

Nice.

William Heasley

“Ask him about the parts of the law that everyone loves, then watch him stammer.”

ACA is not a law, rather it’s legislation.

Legislation is manmade, top down edict of the few to the many. Legislation is created by the stoke of a pen and can be ended by the stroke of a pen. Law on the other hand is emergent order of the many, over centuries, that becomes what the many want as a convention.

Law would be extremely difficult to strike down. Legislation, not so much. One also has to consider ACA is merely legislation that amended prior health insurance legislation which was existing legislation, that in turn, had amended yet prior health insurance legislation as so it goes in a series of amended legislation stretching back to circa 1946.

Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volumes 1,2 and 3, F.A.Hayek, 02/15/1978, 10/15/1978 and 03/15/1981

http://www.amazon.com/Law-Legislation-Liberty-Volume-Rules/dp/0226320863/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401494446&sr=8-1&keywords=law+legislation+and+liberty+hayek


“….that everyone loves”. Ah, the "everyone fallacious debate point" as in our, we, you, me [Yawn]. The “everyone” is merely those that benefit from this aspect or that aspect. There is no “everyone”. More succinctly:

[Paraphrasing] We would all like to see government spending go down as long as it is not the government spending that affects us. We would all like to see government deficits go down as long as increased taxes fall on someone else. Most people welcome more government spending on them, few welcome more taxes. - Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History - Milton Friedman

NitWitCharmer
Want community rating, i.e. no pre-existing conditions? Fine, but then you need an individual mandate to prevent adverse selection and avoid a bad risk pool. And if you have an individual mandate, you need premium subsidies to keep insurance affordable for lower-income folks.

There are easier ways of saying that the ACA does not work.

Andrew Brod

Your reading comprehension is awesome.

NitWitCharmer
Your reading comprehension is awesome.


I take it, then, that you believe the ACA is not in need of being fixed?

Andrew Brod

I'm not saying that no fixes will be needed, but the basic mechanism I outlined, the so-called three-legged stool of the ACA, needs no fixing. It's working. And that's why it makes no sense to say we should keep community rating but discard the rest of the ACA.

Ed Cone

Bill, my apologies for referring to the ACA as a "law," I was relying upon the obscure definition of the word outlined by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution of the United States ("...it shall become a law") and not the much more relevant definition you cited.

NitWitCharmer
Legislation is manmade, top down edict of the few to the many.

The ACA would certainly enjoy more moral authority had it passed with the support of a majority of citizens. As it is the ACA has only enjoyed majority support from the progressive "church lady" few at the top.

Top down edict, indeed.

Andrew Brod

If moral authority is a good thing, then by that reasoning, you must support an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10/hour. It enjoys broad support among voters, including a slim majority of support among Republicans. Even economists, long skeptics of MW laws, now largely support an increase. Aside from employers, the only identifiable group that's solidly opposed to raising the MW are a few Republican politicians at the top.

Andrew Brod

Having said that, the ACA has nothing to apologize for as law. It was enacted according to the rules Congress and the Constitution laid out for passing laws. People can quibble about not liking the ACA, just as others can quibble about not liking Congress' refusal to raise the minimum wage. But the ACA is no less a law for the quibbling.

NitWitCharmer
It was enacted according to the rules Congress and the Constitution laid out for passing laws.

That is questionable.

Not only was the original bill in which the ACA was inserted by the Senate entirely gutted and replaced name and all, but original bill was not a tax bill. And as we all know the ACA has been declared by the supremes a tax law.

Origination does not allow for tax bills to have their genesis in the Senate.

NitWitCharmer
Want community rating, i.e. no pre-existing conditions? Fine, but then you need an individual mandate to prevent adverse selection and avoid a bad risk pool.

Why? If no pre-existing conditions is something we want, why can we the citizens not be directly subjected to the costs of adverse selection?

Anyway, I learned a few years ago that all of this stuff was supposed to save each of us $2500. Now it's a cost?

Andrew Brod

No one said we can't choose to incur the costs of adverse selection. That's what we've been doing for years! But because it wasn't working, it's reasonable to adopt as a policy goal a more balanced risk pool.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment