maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Over the past year I've noted that there has been a lot of claims of failure or success that are dependent upon moral assumptions that are taken as a given. As such, there is no explicit basis of what constitutes "the good or bad" or a utilitarian measure of PPACA's success or failure. There is no agreed upon measurement for balancing effects (even when the effects are undisputed). It seems to me that no conversation can advance without a mutual acknowledgement of core values, some tool of measurement, and a good dose of honesty about the good and the bad results of any legislation.
Therefore, here is what leave me unsatisfied:
1) Suppose, as the few studies done and economic theory indicates, ACA lowers wage growth significantly or somewhat below what would otherwise have occurred. How do we know that this is good or bad? If, in the year 2019, wages were significantly or somewhat below what they otherwise would have been how do we know if, on balance, this "bad" is off-set by more insured as a "good"?
2) Suppose, as the few studies done and economic theory indicates, ACA lowers employment significantly or somewhat below what would otherwise have occurred. How do we know that this is good or bad? If, in the year 2019, employment was significantly below what they otherwise would have been how do we know if, on balance, this "bad" is off-set by more insured as a "good"?
3) Is the issue more insurance policies or improved overall health?
4) If, on average, the same insurance coverage costs an average of 21 percent more than it otherwise would under the prior actuarial system, how does one 'offset' or balance it against the goal of more insured poor and working class? What if it were 10 or 30 percent? How about 50 percent or 75 percent or 200 percent?
5) How does one offset the narrowed provider networks and higher premiums and deductibles for everyone who does not have employer insurance with the "good" of some more people with some kind of insurance policy?
6) What are the principled values, and are they absolute? I ask because:
a) It seems like some argue with the implicit assumption that if ACA helps even a few poor or saves a handful of lives, then any downside to others in cost, quality, is justified.
b) It also seems that some argue that no matter WHO is targeted to pay for ACA, the losers are always morally wrong. For example, even if those who bare the burden for all those with pre-existing conditions or subsidize 'unaffordability' are substantially the other members of the 5 percent of independent policy holders, they must 'grin and bare it' for others good.
c) How much can the young, or childless, male or older female be 'targeted' to pay for the others? How is this justified and what are the limits?
7) Finally, how are you going to get a better system IF you keeping telling us that ACA is "a success"?
Therefore, here is what leave me unsatisfied:
1) Suppose, as the few studies done and economic theory indicates, ACA lowers wage growth significantly or somewhat below what would otherwise have occurred. How do we know that this is good or bad? If, in the year 2019, wages were significantly or somewhat below what they otherwise would have been how do we know if, on balance, this "bad" is off-set by more insured as a "good"?
2) Suppose, as the few studies done and economic theory indicates, ACA lowers employment significantly or somewhat below what would otherwise have occurred. How do we know that this is good or bad? If, in the year 2019, employment was significantly below what they otherwise would have been how do we know if, on balance, this "bad" is off-set by more insured as a "good"?
3) Is the issue more insurance policies or improved overall health?
4) If, on average, the same insurance coverage costs an average of 21 percent more than it otherwise would under the prior actuarial system, how does one 'offset' or balance it against the goal of more insured poor and working class? What if it were 10 or 30 percent? How about 50 percent or 75 percent or 200 percent?
5) How does one offset the narrowed provider networks and higher premiums and deductibles for everyone who does not have employer insurance with the "good" of some more people with some kind of insurance policy?
6) What are the principled values, and are they absolute? I ask because:
a) It seems like some argue with the implicit assumption that if ACA helps even a few poor or saves a handful of lives, then any downside to others in cost, quality, is justified.
b) It also seems that some argue that no matter WHO is targeted to pay for ACA, the losers are always morally wrong. For example, even if those who bare the burden for all those with pre-existing conditions or subsidize 'unaffordability' are substantially the other members of the 5 percent of independent policy holders, they must 'grin and bare it' for others good.
c) How much can the young, or childless, male or older female be 'targeted' to pay for the others? How is this justified and what are the limits?
7) Finally, how are you going to get a better system IF you keeping telling us that ACA is "a success"?
