Other Resources The Political Joe » Health Care Eventuality Rss Feed  
Moderators: Ron Reply
2013-12-18 9:27 PM

User image

Expert
1205
1000100100
Subject: Health Care Eventuality
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.



2013-12-18 9:36 PM
in reply to: vonschnapps

User image

Pro
9117
500020002000100
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?

2013-12-18 10:08 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
1205
1000100100
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.


2013-12-18 11:25 PM
in reply to: vonschnapps

User image

Pro
9117
500020002000100
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.

2013-12-19 5:01 AM
in reply to: vonschnapps

Veteran
223
100100
Ohio
Silver member
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.
2013-12-19 5:53 AM
in reply to: buck1400

User image

Elite
6249
5000100010010025
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.



2013-12-19 7:56 AM
in reply to: vonschnapps

User image

Member
353
1001001002525
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.

2013-12-19 10:29 AM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Pro
6160
500010001002525
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.

2013-12-19 6:09 PM
in reply to: 0

Veteran
223
100100
Ohio
Silver member
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
2013-12-20 10:11 AM
in reply to: buck1400

User image

Pro
6160
500010001002525
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.

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Health Care Eventuality Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

Affordable Care Act for dummies version Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6

Started by trigal38
Views: 5086 Posts: 140

2013-11-13 4:25 PM buck1400

On the street interviews 'Obamacare' vs. Affordable Care Act

Started by tolefanjh
Views: 436 Posts: 4

2013-10-02 9:24 AM msteiner

Medical Groups Oppose Gun-Law Change To Share Mental Health Records

Started by DanielG
Views: 787 Posts: 11

2013-06-19 2:04 PM powerman
RELATED ARTICLES
date : September 24, 2012
comments : 1
Your wetsuit is a substantial investment, and proper care will extend its life considerably.
 
date : December 17, 2007
author : Diane1961
comments : 2
The Monday after the race, I go to my health club for my first Pilates class in six years. I look like the fittest person here. Fortunately, I don’t mention to anyone that I’m a triathlete.
date : December 11, 2007
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 1
Searching for the perfect gift for a friend, relative, or teammate? Here's a list of winning book suggestions for active people.
 
date : August 17, 2007
author : scoli121
comments : 6
I quickly browsed an article in Men's Health that talked about doing a triathlon, and how it wasn't really that hard. With a "tsk!" I quickly turned the page while thinking, "Yeah, right!"
date : July 10, 2007
author : mars
comments : 5
The journey of an average Joe entering the triathlon world. I was 35 pounds overweight and out of shape. Enough was enough, and it was time for me to take back my health and my body.
 
date : May 1, 2006
author : Nancy Clark
comments : 1
Below are just a few tips from sports dietitians and other health professionals who help active people transform their food fears into peaceful fueling.
date : December 12, 2004
author : CLLinIA
comments : 0
What you can do to clean up your local swimming hole and keep it clean!
 
date : November 28, 2004
author : sekhmet
comments : 0
I challenge all BT readers who want to shed the pounds to stay committed to their training during the colder months. Share this commitment with others.