|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 28 2012 20:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 18:41 BluePanther wrote:
Personally, I'm in favor of the tax and voucher solution to the problem. It fixes nearly every issue with health care in one go while maintaining private choice and a free market.
And while Repubs might be vehemently against the tax increase, the truth is that the avg person is already spending that money already. It just shifts your insurance payments from being to private companies to the government, who then ensures they cover everyone, thereby reducing the overal money spent on health care due to poor individuals being able to obtain preventative care. In the end, citizens end up spending less and getting more, and lose absolutely no freedoms.
All it takes is for someone to explain to them that a tax increase is in their own best financial interest on this one. I'd say, it just shifts your insurance payments from being to private companies to being to the government, who then adds 2 levels of bureaucracies to process them, thereby drastically increases the overall money spent on health care. I really don't buy this notion that government purchasing insurance for poor people will suddenly translate into huge cost savings as more of the poor obtain preventative care. Yes, vouchers are a bit easier to stomach. It increases the quality of options when companies have to fight for the money (like they do now, in a sense). It's worked before in school choice and quality ... making the schools compete to provide the better service instead of automatically getting students no matter how bad they teach. Now I'm not here saying the current relationship between insurance providers, health care providers, and health care customers is even close to being in a good situation. Government regulations forcing insurance providers to include services that the buyers may not want. Frivolous lawsuits making health care all-around just that much more expensive, due to the sheer magnitude of payouts they may be forced into (Man comes in for 20$ procedure, but could sue for one million dollars if it goes wrong, and then the cost of the procedure includes a distributed risk assessment and prices go up). The entire concept of the negotiation of prices taking place between two parties apart from the consumer (People spending other people's money never spend it as well as a person spending his own money, wiki link. Government standard payouts for Medicare remaining the same regardless of the actual cost of the procedure. That's kinda a stripped view of the conservative manifesto in insurance reform / health care reform / medicare reform. I don't think I'm going to convince anybody that the aforementioned are the real underlying problems with the rising cost of health care, and the inability of poor people to afford it. Greater minds than me have debated that one for quite some time now. I'll just go back to vehemently opposing tax increases and claiming, "No, it ought not be so!"
It actually doesn't add that much beauracracy. You pay a little more in taxes (although that law doesn't need to be complicated at all), and anyone who files a return gets essentially a debit card. This card can be used to purchase healthcare related objects approved by HHS, including insurance (debate over what can be included is probably the most difficult part). Think of it as a subset of a Food Stamp program, you could roll many of the administrative costs into each other. If you want to use more money than awarded, you can provide it out of pocket. If you don't want to buy insurance, you don't have to. But you basically lose out on a free product at this point. Is it perfect? No. But I think it's better than what we have now from both an economic standpoint (which reps love) and a humanitarian standpoint (which dems love).
Also, this approach will make healthcare costs dive if they are being perpetrated by the lower class. I used to work at a homeless shelter and dealt with this situations rather often. Poeple would come in with colds/flus, they'd be unable to pay for treatment/medicine, live outside in 0 degree weather, then come down with pneumonia or something. Then we'd have to send them to the ER since they couldn't get treatment any other way and might die. Replace this with any of a number of differenthing things, namely simple infections. Preventative care is the #1 way to prevent waste and should reduce costs all around as these people could get simpler care at the correct time that is provided at a much cheaper cost.
I know this is anecdotal, but I would be absolutely shocked if this didn't lower costs: I lived in a small city and I alone probably sent 50 uninsured people to the ER in the matter of a few months for issues that preventative care could have stopped.
|
Is anyone following Scotusblog? Apparently chances are still 50/50 because striking down the individual mandate would have effects that the court does not desire.
This was summarized by a quote by Justice Scalia:
first, that it “just couldn’t be right” that all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the mandate, “then the statute’s gone.”
The court appeared to unable to come to a conclusion on how to deal with the aftermath which may unintentionally boost the chance of the mandate staying.
|
On March 29 2012 01:51 AUGcodon wrote:Is anyone following Scotusblog? Apparently chances are still 50/50 because striking down the individual mandate would have effects that the court does not desire. This was summarized by a quote by Justice Scalia: Show nested quote +first, that it “just couldn’t be right” that all of the myriad provisions of the law unrelated to the mandate had to fall with it, but, later, that if the Court were to strike out the mandate, “then the statute’s gone.” The court appeared to unable to come to a conclusion on how to deal with the aftermath which may unintentionally boost the chance of the mandate staying.
That's some serious wishful thinking.
|
sometimes american law and government really confuses me. pretty much every country in the world has a constitution but nearly all of them realise that a document written 200 years ago by a bunch of old white guys simply isn't relevent anymore. most people in the UK don't even know that we have a constitution...... the simple fact is that when the US constitution (like all constitutions) was written it was intended as a guidance document and not a be all and end all list of rights and shouldn't be treated as such.
everyone deserves "free" healthcare, even if it means that you have to wait to get treated sometimes, those with enough money to have private health insurance can still have it and get treated right away. Hell in the UK you can get private health insurance for about £30 per month, which even most people on a low wage can afford if they really want or need it. i simply don't understand why people would ever be opposed to the government mandating you to have health insurance, it saves money for both the government and businesses, not to mention relieving pressure on emergency care services that otherwise have to treat minor injuries and illnesses for people that don't have coverage.
|
I got a question though, the legal community seem legitimately shocked when the mandate looked like it would be struck down. Why were most of the legal community so sure that it would pass?
Also Im mostly just following SCOTUS blog because it appeared to the best sources on these updates. Did I misinterpret what they said?
|
On March 29 2012 02:11 AUGcodon wrote:
I got a question though, the legal community seem legitimately shocked when the mandate looked like it would be struck down. Why were most of the legal community so sure that it would pass?
I really have no idea. I wondered about this earlier in the thread. Anyone who was paying attention should have seen this coming. The current composition of the Court and the recent "New Federalism" decisions starting with Lopez all pointed to the mandate being declared unconstitutional.
|
"Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program."
Ronald Reagan (in 1961 when he was an actor) had a very detailed prophecy on what will happen when America adopts a plan for socialized medicine.
Ronald Reagan speaks on socialized healthcare in 1961
important excerpts from the interview-
+ Show Spoiler +
"James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities."
Aside from his stupid advocacy of the war on drugs, Reagan was a great president, and he foresaw the shit we are getting ourselves into with obamacare a full 50 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. We'll see if his prophecy turns out to be true if obamacare passes....for all of our sakes, i hope not.
|
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
bahahahahahaahahahaha,
from an european side, this is such a ridicolous statement...
I don't know if it's constitutional or not, but I hope that a social security system IS installed in USA.
|
On March 29 2012 02:37 SkytoM wrote:Show nested quote +Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other. bahahahahahaahahahaha, from an european side, this is such a ridicolous statement... I don't know if it's constitutional or not, but I hope that a social security system IS installed in USA.
ridiculous statement? this interview is from 1961 smart guy, back when the United States really DID HAVE THE BEST MEDICINE IN THE WORLD.
|
On March 29 2012 02:31 LtCalley wrote:"Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program." Ronald Reagan (in 1961 when he was an actor) had a very detailed prophecy on what will happen when America adopts a plan for socialized medicine. Ronald Reagan speaks on socialized healthcare in 1961important excerpts from the interview- + Show Spoiler +
"James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities."
Aside from his stupid advocacy of the war on drugs, Reagan was a great president, and he foresaw the shit we are getting ourselves into with obamacare a full 50 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. We'll see if his prophecy turns out to be true if obamacare passes....for all of our sakes, i hope not.
Ironically, EMTALA (signed into law by Reagan) is what informally socialized healthcare in the US by forcing emergency rooms to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. This is just one, but nonetheless a major factor, in the cost and coverage trends that have led us to the health care law.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 29 2012 02:31 LtCalley wrote:"Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program." Ronald Reagan (in 1961 when he was an actor) had a very detailed prophecy on what will happen when America adopts a plan for socialized medicine. Ronald Reagan speaks on socialized healthcare in 1961important excerpts from the interview- + Show Spoiler +
"James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule” is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities."
Aside from his stupid advocacy of the war on drugs, Reagan was a great president, and he foresaw the shit we are getting ourselves into with obamacare a full 50 YEARS BEFORE IT HAPPENED. We'll see if his prophecy turns out to be true if obamacare passes....for all of our sakes, i hope not.
Reagan was not a great president, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there.
His trickle down economic policies that are still being used are what's ruining this country.
|
On March 28 2012 22:15 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 22:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote:On March 28 2012 15:06 tree.hugger wrote:I should remember to not argue with people on the internet. I was halfway through writing a long post, and then I realized, it wasn't going to convince anyone. All of you who've made it this far already have opinions, and internet opinions never change, so what's the point?  Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. Yes but if everyone is born into the market then it still raises the question of what limits on federal power remain. Since virtually everything you do or don't do impacts health then you could argue that the federal government can mandate anything under the aegis of health care regulation. If so then it would be an invalid interpretation of the constitution since it would violate the simple fact that there are limits on federal power. That's where the broccoli argument comes in. Broccoli is good for health and impacts health care therefore government can mandate its consumption as part of its unlimited power to regulate healthcare from cradle to grave. The founders wrote a standard for when something becomes a federal issue (interstate commerce) that now, due to technological advances in communication, transport, finance, and so forth, means that basically all economic regulation is a federal issue. I'd argue that was smart, since it means that federal power grows naturally to fit the need. You (and Alito, and others) might think it's bad because you like states rights. But that's not an argument that it's not in the constitution. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution does indeed give the federal government basically unlimited power in this area over and over and over again. It's only reconsidering now because it doesn't like what the federal government is doing with that power.
Yes all commerce can be regulated by the federal government. BUT you can't force someone to participate in it. If you want to buy a car you have to adhere to the regulations BUT the government cannot force you to buy a car.
That's an argument from the case itself on Tuesday and the answer was that healthcare is 'special' since everyone is in it. Well if true, the logic goes, then the federal government can compel a citizen to do ANYTHING under the aegis of health care regulation.
|
On March 29 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2012 22:15 aristarchus wrote:On March 28 2012 22:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote:On March 28 2012 15:06 tree.hugger wrote:I should remember to not argue with people on the internet. I was halfway through writing a long post, and then I realized, it wasn't going to convince anyone. All of you who've made it this far already have opinions, and internet opinions never change, so what's the point? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. Yes but if everyone is born into the market then it still raises the question of what limits on federal power remain. Since virtually everything you do or don't do impacts health then you could argue that the federal government can mandate anything under the aegis of health care regulation. If so then it would be an invalid interpretation of the constitution since it would violate the simple fact that there are limits on federal power. That's where the broccoli argument comes in. Broccoli is good for health and impacts health care therefore government can mandate its consumption as part of its unlimited power to regulate healthcare from cradle to grave. The founders wrote a standard for when something becomes a federal issue (interstate commerce) that now, due to technological advances in communication, transport, finance, and so forth, means that basically all economic regulation is a federal issue. I'd argue that was smart, since it means that federal power grows naturally to fit the need. You (and Alito, and others) might think it's bad because you like states rights. But that's not an argument that it's not in the constitution. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution does indeed give the federal government basically unlimited power in this area over and over and over again. It's only reconsidering now because it doesn't like what the federal government is doing with that power. Yes all commerce can be regulated by the federal government. BUT you can't force someone to participate in it. If you want to buy a car you have to adhere to the regulations BUT the government cannot force you to buy a car. That's an argument from the case itself on Tuesday and the answer was that healthcare is 'special' since everyone is in it. Well if true, the logic goes, then the federal government can compel a citizen to do ANYTHING under the aegis of health care regulation.
Well this isn't exactly right. The market for healthcare insurance is an anomaly in this respect. Pretty much all other markets (according to modern economic theory, anyways) function differently insofar that a basic purchasing requirement would raise prices for everyone. You wouldn't be able to simply label, say, automobile or foodstuffs purchases as part of "healthcare" since the markets for both of those things function normally, as opposed to the healthcare insurance market, where a basic coverage requirement would actually lower prices for everyone.
|
For your interest:
Mitt Romney's evasive and crappy answer to how to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions acts as a reminder for why the individual mandate was included in the first place.
Mitt Romney was vague on Tuesday about how he would deal with people who have pre-existing conditions and are trying to get insurance, saying there should be rules to prevent companies from denying it to those who have held insurance before. He gave no answer on how to help those who have consistently been denied insurance.
"People who have been continuously insured ... then they get real sick and they happen to lose a job or change jobs, they find, gosh, I've got a pre-existing condition, I can't get insured. I'd say, 'no no no,'" he said Tuesday night on NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno." "As long as you've been continuously insured, you ought to be able to get insurance going forward."
Romney added that Obamacare should be repealed and that the issue of health care should be decided by the states.
He acknowledged that it is a problem when people with a pre-existing condition do not have insurance and then try to get it -- one of the reasons for the individual mandate in President Barack Obama's health care reform. Many of them are denied insurance, even if they are not -- as implied by Romney -- trying to game the system by only joining once they are already sick.
Romney said "people who have done their best to get insured," even with a pre-existing condition, should be able to get insurance. But he also said there should be measures to prevent people from waiting to get insurance until they are sick.
"Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up and they say, 'I want insurance because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, 'Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that,'" he told Leno. "You've got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered."
|
By definition you cannot provide insurance against something that has already occurred. That can not even be called insurance. The real question you are asking is "how can we socialize the costs." It can't be done through insurance companies in the private sector, because capitalism entails choice and free exchange, which is antithetical to socialism. They are businesses, not socialist institutions, and they cannot be forced to behave like a socialist institution. If the people want socialized medicine, they can pass it tomorrow, and it can be managed by government, not by private insurance companies in a market system.
|
"Well this isn't exactly right. The market for healthcare insurance is an anomaly in this respect. Pretty much all other markets (according to modern economic theory, anyways) function differently insofar that a basic purchasing requirement would raise prices for everyone. You wouldn't be able to simply label, say, automobile or foodstuffs purchases as part of "healthcare" since the markets for both of those things function normally, as opposed to the healthcare insurance market, where a basic coverage requirement would actually lower prices for everyone."
The prices started to inflate because people starting using health insurance and creating an environment full of fraud. I know there are dozens of different opinions, but why do people think doing the same thing over and over again is going to yield a different result?
|
|
|
On March 29 2012 04:31 Thenerf wrote:
"Well this isn't exactly right. The market for healthcare insurance is an anomaly in this respect. Pretty much all other markets (according to modern economic theory, anyways) function differently insofar that a basic purchasing requirement would raise prices for everyone. You wouldn't be able to simply label, say, automobile or foodstuffs purchases as part of "healthcare" since the markets for both of those things function normally, as opposed to the healthcare insurance market, where a basic coverage requirement would actually lower prices for everyone."
The prices started to inflate because people starting using health insurance and creating an environment full of fraud. I know there are dozens of different opinions, but why do people think doing the same thing over and over again is going to yield a different result?
Here's a very good point... The vast majority of care could originally be payed for out of pocket, meaning insurance wouldn't be this "absolutely necessary" means of paying for health care. Insurance is supposed to be designed to insure someone against financial ruin from rare unforeseen events. It wasn't designed to be used to pay for routine doctor visits or a single prescription or any other minor cost. Third party payment for everything inflated prices primarily because prices could be inflated, they weren't being largely borne by the person actually choosing to consume the care.
There is a complete disconnect between demand for a service and the supply. Price is supposed to be a mechanism for providing information and influencing behavior, but price incentives do not exist if a third party is paying most of the costs.
|
So with the recaps I'm reading today... it looks like the individual mandate is dead. 5-4 at least, with a good shot at 6-3.
The only question they are wrestling with sounds like... Does the SCOTUS tell Congress they are killing the entire law, or just the individual mandate?
In the end, it's the same thing. Everything rides on young people being mandated to purchase insurance. So killing the individual mandate basically kills everything related to the new inflows of money.
But it is an important difference.
|
On March 29 2012 03:02 shaldengeki wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 02:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2012 22:15 aristarchus wrote:On March 28 2012 22:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 28 2012 17:06 Romantic wrote:On March 28 2012 16:01 Danglars wrote:On March 28 2012 15:10 BluePanther wrote:On March 28 2012 15:06 tree.hugger wrote:I should remember to not argue with people on the internet. I was halfway through writing a long post, and then I realized, it wasn't going to convince anyone. All of you who've made it this far already have opinions, and internet opinions never change, so what's the point? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. Intelligent people because everybody else is the dummie, not me. I can't believe you hold that opinion, for mine is logical and right. Individual mandate goes too far in asserting the federal government's control. I'm not going to go farther than what's already been discussed at the Supreme Court. Hoping they find it unconstitutional, and just as unconstitutional as mandating the purchase of a cell phone or broccoli by passing a law. It is quite clear this is nothing like a cell phone or brocolli. Cell phones and broccoli are not payment for another market everyone is a part of. It goes like this; the government can regulate how you pay for something once you have entered a market. Hell, it can then regulate all sorts of behavior in that market. Pro-mandate folks say you entered the healthcare market when you were born and thus acquired your health, or if you'd like, everyone alive is just in it. Healthcare is unique in that way. As such, the government could force you to buy private health insurance so long as you are in possession of your health and not exempt (Amish, Christian Scientists), just like they can force you to buy private car insurance for being in possession of\using a car. Kagan raised the exempt groups specifically when she said they'd have a better case if they were representing an abnormal group that refuses medicine and the medical practice. Anti-mandate lawyers tried to say car insurance (admitting forcing people to buy private car insurance isn't unconstitutional if the federal government decided to do it, not the states) and health insurance are different because you can avoid car insurance by not buying a car. Sure, you could also avoid being alive and in possession of your life if you really wanted to. You could join a religious group with an exemption. This objection does nothing other than further demonstrate the uniqueness of the healthcare market. Everyone is in it. Pointing out it is unique doesn't constitute an argument against using commerce clause power. There is no real dangerous precedent. Yes but if everyone is born into the market then it still raises the question of what limits on federal power remain. Since virtually everything you do or don't do impacts health then you could argue that the federal government can mandate anything under the aegis of health care regulation. If so then it would be an invalid interpretation of the constitution since it would violate the simple fact that there are limits on federal power. That's where the broccoli argument comes in. Broccoli is good for health and impacts health care therefore government can mandate its consumption as part of its unlimited power to regulate healthcare from cradle to grave. The founders wrote a standard for when something becomes a federal issue (interstate commerce) that now, due to technological advances in communication, transport, finance, and so forth, means that basically all economic regulation is a federal issue. I'd argue that was smart, since it means that federal power grows naturally to fit the need. You (and Alito, and others) might think it's bad because you like states rights. But that's not an argument that it's not in the constitution. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that the constitution does indeed give the federal government basically unlimited power in this area over and over and over again. It's only reconsidering now because it doesn't like what the federal government is doing with that power. Yes all commerce can be regulated by the federal government. BUT you can't force someone to participate in it. If you want to buy a car you have to adhere to the regulations BUT the government cannot force you to buy a car. That's an argument from the case itself on Tuesday and the answer was that healthcare is 'special' since everyone is in it. Well if true, the logic goes, then the federal government can compel a citizen to do ANYTHING under the aegis of health care regulation. Well this isn't exactly right. The market for healthcare insurance is an anomaly in this respect. Pretty much all other markets (according to modern economic theory, anyways) function differently insofar that a basic purchasing requirement would raise prices for everyone. You wouldn't be able to simply label, say, automobile or foodstuffs purchases as part of "healthcare" since the markets for both of those things function normally, as opposed to the healthcare insurance market, where a basic coverage requirement would actually lower prices for everyone.
I disagree with your economic argument since forcing people to buy health insurance does not lower the cost. It shifts the cost to the healthy people that are now forced into the insurance pool. In the aggregate no costs are saved. Costs are only saved if people use the new insurance well for preventative care, which may not happen. Conversely, if an automaker has excess capacity then the cost per car can be lowered by mandating purchases.
Regardless the simple fact that 'healthcare is different' doesn't grant Congress new powers. It still has limits under the constitution and those limits are what's being debated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
