Do we want the message to be that everyone is welcome to try their hand at entrepreneurship, or that the only ones that should get to try are the young, rich, and healthy?
If you research the issue, I think you'll find the status quo is in fact the latter. Not because everyone's not welcome, but because being an entrepreneur when not young, rich and healthy is much, much riskier than when you are.
There are ways to greatly mitigate that risk. Being able to get affordable coverage for yourself and your family can enable many people to become entrepreneurs, or even go work for startups, that wouldn't be able to before.
Please don't post like this to HN, regardless of how wrong or annoying something else is (or feels). If you have a substantive point to make, please make it thoughtfully; otherwise don't comment until you do.
I'm grateful people are sounding this alarm. A healthy society produces a more stable, faster-growing economy, and entrepreneurship shouldn't be limited to those scions of wealthy families.
exactly a saner heath care system makes sense for employers and employees it removes the need for expensive employer provided benefits and also promotes a flexible work force ie you don't stick in a job for health care benefits
I've been reading it when I get time but won't be able to fine-toothed-comb it until end of work day. At a glance, while TFA seems to take a more alarmist tone, it may be merited. Many of the core points I cared about (axing planned parenthood funding, limiting female reproductive choice, preexisting condition prevention, cutting benefits/making benefits obtainable to the lowest economic demographics, among other things) are in fact being torpedoed, so from my standpoint, the alarmist tone is apt; This is the time to get angry.
Disclaimer: The summary and bill itself are extremely dense and not really "plain english"; I don't claim to be versed in reading the docs as someone with proper legal/healthcare background would, my statements above are that to my ears I note a lot of red flags.
This article BADLY needs source references otherwise all it rings of is FUD. I'm sure there is definitely references that can be found, but they are just sorely needed.
My thoughts exactly. Without references I cannot and should not take this information at face value, and cannot verify what the trade offs are for each clause. Some subgroup likely has an offsetting benefit for each subgroup receiving a setback.
Alas the lack of references and simplified message is likely highly effective at dissemination/virality/call-to-action.
I imagine that the contents of this post are not incorrect, but the alarmist tone and the hand-wavey assertions that lack references to primary sources is very off putting to me.
Worst of all is the fact that I can tell that being alarmist/sensational and simplifying information so that it is easily digestibale and/or partisan and unbalanced [1] is the most effective way for any cause or any party to mobilize its allies.
[1] In the absence of references to primary sources, it's only natural for me to assume that there are counter-benefits for some subset of the population for many of these effects that will negatively impact potential self employed professionals.
If the US intends to keep doing private health insurance-based healthcare (as opposed to single payer, universal healthcare, or a medicare-advantage like model) then they need to seriously evaluate if employer linked health insurance is a healthy model.
The ACA ("Obamacare") Marketplace was the right model, but it failed. It failed largely because insurance consumers were largely put into two "buckets" those with employer provided insurance (more wealthy; more healthy; more profitable) and those without employer provided health insurance (less wealthy/startups/unemployed/sicker/less profitable/etc).
To use an analogy, imagine for a second what would happen if everyone got their car insurance through their employer. You'd expect car insurance for the employed to get a little cheaper, and the car insurance for those buying it independently to shoot through the roof.
If everyone purchased their insurance privately, and employers could only provide money for that via the pre-existing HSA accounts (tax free), then everyone would get to pay the same rates. In that scenario the unemployed would pay the same as federal employees.
Why is scrapping employer provided health insurance never discussed in the US healthcare debate? We already have the mechanism for employers to pay for employee's health insurance tax free (HSAs), all we need to do is ban employers from picking an employee's insurance company for them.
Everyone always talks about competition in the US. But how can there be competition when an employer can dictate just one or two different insurance companies their employees are forced to take? And only one or two tiers of care?
Article is a hyperbole filled rant light on facts and heavy on rhetoric. Doesn't belong on HN.
That said, healthcare is a demographic and economic issue - period. If there's enough money to cover all American's healthcare needs it is pure political gold to do so and no need for debate. There isn't enough money. If the United States were a cruise ship, it would be sinking in debt (eg. 100% of US GDP) and feature 50 swimming pools in which most states are simultaneously sinking in debt - Illinois being the standard bearer of US fiscal catastrophe.
This is the reality a half century of fiscal irresponsibility and irrational optimism has brought. Cold, hard realism is the only remedy.
> If there's enough money to cover all American's healthcare needs it is pure political gold to do so and no need for debate.
I think you are completely missing the debate. The arguments against universal healthcare are 1) If I am healthy, why should I be paying (through taxes) for sick people to go to the hospital, 2) standard of care would become worse if it were government run (wait hours to see a doctor that you can't pick), and 3) less innovation would occur due to lower profits being seen by drug companies, hospitals, etc.
I disagree with nearly all these points, but those are the arguments, not "we don't have the money".
1) Why should I spend the money. 2) The government doesn't have enough money to resource it. 3) Lower profits (money) = less innovation. Its ALL about money, and not inappropriately so.
How exactly do insurance co. profits benefit innovation? If there wasn't a categorical rejection of a single payer system in the us it seems there would be plenty of money.
I mean the sole reason I don't quit my job right now and try and either 1) start a company or 2) take contracting jobs is because health care would cost me around $4000-$6000 per year and I am a healthy, young, single, male with no pre-existing conditions or dependents.
Meh, part of me is actually hoping the bill gets passed. Then everyone who voted for Trump/these Republican lawmakers gets to see their premiums rise and coverage worsen in spite of Obama and Democrats being nowhere near it. Denialism doesn't extend to one's wallet, and apparently Republicans are already increasingly dissatisfied with the way things are going.
Thank you Amy! I've followed you for some time and know that you've been public about your health issues. Really sad that the "Grand Old Party" has decided this is the way they want to run the country.
This post prompted me to the 5Calls.org website and I called both of my Senators. Both are Democrats and were already strongly opposed to the BCRA but it took less than 5 minutes to vocalize my support. They asked for my zipcode to ensure I was one of their constituents, which was nice.
5Calls has an impact section [1], but man, would it be nice to snag the raw data to see more info on those 1.5 million phone calls (by date, by geography, by call status, etc.)
I'm always surprised how slick politicians can take a majority vote and transform it into a gift for an exclusive minority. Healthcare was always an issue in the US, but this is truly worse than pre-Obamacare. A tragedy.
There were entrepreneurs in the United States before Obamacare. Some of them were moderately successful. Some even came to the United States because it was perceived to be entrepreneur-friendly.
I appreciate both sides of the argument around Obamacare (I would prefer single payer, since the US already spends more on socialized medicine than any other country except Norway[1] and I think Obamacare is deeply flawed) but this is neither a rational headline nor article.
31 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 82.0 ms ] threadI've been reading it when I get time but won't be able to fine-toothed-comb it until end of work day. At a glance, while TFA seems to take a more alarmist tone, it may be merited. Many of the core points I cared about (axing planned parenthood funding, limiting female reproductive choice, preexisting condition prevention, cutting benefits/making benefits obtainable to the lowest economic demographics, among other things) are in fact being torpedoed, so from my standpoint, the alarmist tone is apt; This is the time to get angry.
Disclaimer: The summary and bill itself are extremely dense and not really "plain english"; I don't claim to be versed in reading the docs as someone with proper legal/healthcare background would, my statements above are that to my ears I note a lot of red flags.
Alas the lack of references and simplified message is likely highly effective at dissemination/virality/call-to-action.
Worst of all is the fact that I can tell that being alarmist/sensational and simplifying information so that it is easily digestibale and/or partisan and unbalanced [1] is the most effective way for any cause or any party to mobilize its allies.
[1] In the absence of references to primary sources, it's only natural for me to assume that there are counter-benefits for some subset of the population for many of these effects that will negatively impact potential self employed professionals.
The ACA ("Obamacare") Marketplace was the right model, but it failed. It failed largely because insurance consumers were largely put into two "buckets" those with employer provided insurance (more wealthy; more healthy; more profitable) and those without employer provided health insurance (less wealthy/startups/unemployed/sicker/less profitable/etc).
To use an analogy, imagine for a second what would happen if everyone got their car insurance through their employer. You'd expect car insurance for the employed to get a little cheaper, and the car insurance for those buying it independently to shoot through the roof.
If everyone purchased their insurance privately, and employers could only provide money for that via the pre-existing HSA accounts (tax free), then everyone would get to pay the same rates. In that scenario the unemployed would pay the same as federal employees.
Why is scrapping employer provided health insurance never discussed in the US healthcare debate? We already have the mechanism for employers to pay for employee's health insurance tax free (HSAs), all we need to do is ban employers from picking an employee's insurance company for them.
Everyone always talks about competition in the US. But how can there be competition when an employer can dictate just one or two different insurance companies their employees are forced to take? And only one or two tiers of care?
That said, healthcare is a demographic and economic issue - period. If there's enough money to cover all American's healthcare needs it is pure political gold to do so and no need for debate. There isn't enough money. If the United States were a cruise ship, it would be sinking in debt (eg. 100% of US GDP) and feature 50 swimming pools in which most states are simultaneously sinking in debt - Illinois being the standard bearer of US fiscal catastrophe.
This is the reality a half century of fiscal irresponsibility and irrational optimism has brought. Cold, hard realism is the only remedy.
I think you are completely missing the debate. The arguments against universal healthcare are 1) If I am healthy, why should I be paying (through taxes) for sick people to go to the hospital, 2) standard of care would become worse if it were government run (wait hours to see a doctor that you can't pick), and 3) less innovation would occur due to lower profits being seen by drug companies, hospitals, etc.
I disagree with nearly all these points, but those are the arguments, not "we don't have the money".
Every other developed country has enough money, and most of them have far less than the US.
http://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-com...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/212252/seventeen-point-drop-satis...
This post prompted me to the 5Calls.org website and I called both of my Senators. Both are Democrats and were already strongly opposed to the BCRA but it took less than 5 minutes to vocalize my support. They asked for my zipcode to ensure I was one of their constituents, which was nice.
5Calls has an impact section [1], but man, would it be nice to snag the raw data to see more info on those 1.5 million phone calls (by date, by geography, by call status, etc.)
[1] https://5calls.org/impact
I appreciate both sides of the argument around Obamacare (I would prefer single payer, since the US already spends more on socialized medicine than any other country except Norway[1] and I think Obamacare is deeply flawed) but this is neither a rational headline nor article.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...