• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

No.. I explained my statement. You have not countered it, nor addressed anything else in my post.
Why don't you go do that.

Your post

Goods and services are goods and services; all are subject to market forces.

I'll repeat, lack of substitutions...if you need a heart valve...there's no substitution. Choice, if you're needing healthcare now you don't have time to price around. Information, healthcare is specialized, most Americans cannot make truly informed decisions. Competition, most cities have minimal amounts of hospitals.

Competition, subsitituion, informed consumers are the bedrocks of a good effective market system.
 
If you have excercised your choice to pay for your medical expenses out of pocket and you don't have the money to pay for them, you don't receive the goods and services. Simple, really.
Ok, so you're for changing the system we currently have then. You did not make that clear. You did not say that treating individuals without insurance should end.

Now then:
Why should I pay a penalty when I incur no cost and create no burden?

Because as of now, people still receive medical care...I'm sorry, you didn't clarify that you weren't talking about reality just some libertarian paradise that does not exist.
 
I'll repeat, lack of substitutions.
In the terms you;re trying to use, this is rrelevant to the issue.

Market forces apply in all cases - regardless of the good/service, you look for the best cost and the best quality. In the case of the heart valve, you're subtituting someone who charges too much or does inferior work for soemone who doesn't. Eliminating insurance brings competition; competition, subsitituion, informed consumers are the bedrocks of a good effective market system.

You may now address the remaineder of my post, specifically:

Why do you think it's wrong that most American can afford out of pocket stuff they really NEED...?

"We" have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure that anyone has anything.
You, personally, may think you have a moral responsibility to do so, but you have an outlet for that, and you have no standing whatsoever to impose that morality on others.
 
In the terms you;re trying to use, this is rrelevant to the issue.

Market forces apply in all cases - regardless of the good/service, you look for the best cost and the best quality. In the case of the heart valve, you're subtituting someone who charges too much or does inferior work for soemone who doesn't. Eliminating insurance brings competition; competition, subsitituion, informed consumers are the bedrocks of a good effective market system.

You may now address the remaineder of my post, specifically:

Why do you think it's wrong that most American can afford out of pocket stuff they really NEED...?

"We" have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure that anyone has anything.
You, personally, may think you have a moral responsibility to do so, but you have an outlet for that, and you have no standing whatsoever to impose that morality on others.

Rightwing kooks thinks there's a "free market" in body parts!! :cuckoo:

Truth is, the free market is a fantasy that has never existed.
 
Ok, so you're for changing the system we currently have then. You did not make that clear. You did not say that treating individuals without insurance should end.
No change is necessary. You are never compelled to receive goods and services you do not/can not pay for. Someone who chooses to only receive the goods and services he pays for refuses goods/services he cannot.

Because as of now, people still receive medical care
This doesnt address the question.
Why should -I- pay a penalty when -I- incur no cost and -I- create no burden?
How am -I- responsible for the costs/burdens created by -other- people?
 
In the terms you;re trying to use, this is rrelevant to the issue.

Market forces apply in all cases - regardless of the good/service, you look for the best cost and the best quality. In the case of the heart valve, you're subtituting someone who charges too much or does inferior work for soemone who doesn't. Eliminating insurance brings competition; competition, subsitituion, informed consumers are the bedrocks of a good effective market system.

I'm specifically pointing to price elasticty and high barrier for entry regarding health services. Eliminating insurance does nothing to fix those issues.

"We" have no responsibility whatsoever to make sure that anyone has anything.
You, personally, may think you have a moral responsibility to do so, but you have an outlet for that, and you have no standing whatsoever to impose that morality on others.

I'm arguing from the perspective that uses the system we currently have...which provides emergency care to anyone no matter their ability to pay. Yes, if we had a system where that wasn't the case then the incentive of recieving not care would be sufficient...there would be no need for a mandate.
 
I'm specifically pointing to price elasticty and high barrier for entry regarding health services. Eliminating insurance does nothing to fix those issues.
Sure it does. People wont be able to pay the high prices we see today, so the prices will drop to the point where people can pay.

I'm arguing from the perspective that uses the system we currently have...which provides emergency care to anyone no matter their ability to pay. Yes, if we had a system where that wasn't the case then the incentive of recieving not care would be sufficient...there would be no need for a mandate
.
This doesnt address what I said. Please read what I said and try again.
 
This doesnt address the question.
Why should -I- pay a penalty when -I- incur no cost and -I- create no burden?
How am -I- responsible for the costs/burdens created by -other- people?

Your arguement is based on A) an alternate reality where people are not treated if they can't afford and choose not to purchase insurance or B) when faced or life or death choose death on principle of not receiving services they refuse to pay for.

As of now A is not relevant and B is pretty ficticious.
 
Your arguement is based on A) an alternate reality where people are not treated if they can't afford and choose not to purchase insurance
False. I presented the fact that you happily seek to take away the choice to pay for medical expenses out of pocket, and only if the person could pay for them.
Nothing about what I said in any way supposes that people are not treated if they cannot afford it.

B) when faced or life or death choose death on principle of not receiving services they refuse to pay for.
Everyone has this choice; no one is forced to accept medical treatment.
Thus, the choice certainly exists; the fact thay you find it unlikely is meaningless.

As of now A is not relevant and B is pretty ficticious.
Point is that you seek to remove the choice and, one way or the other, make me responsible for the costs of others.

Nothing you have presented here assresses the questions I put to you.
So, I will ask AGAIN:

Why should -I- pay a penalty when -I- incur no cost and -I- create no burden?
How am -I- responsible for the costs/burdens created by -other- people?
 
Everyone has this choice; no one is forced to accept medical treatment.
Thus, the choice certainly exists; the fact thay you find it unlikely is meaningless
I'm not going to argue over this ridiculous scenario until you can provide some kind of justificat (numbers would be nice) showing that people forgo medical care when they don't pay insurance.
 
Sure it does. People wont be able to pay the high prices we see today, so the prices will drop to the point where people can pay.
You are aware supply and demand are not the only drivers for prices correct? If a good (cancer treatment) is not affordable by many people then hospitals would no longer provide it, not drop the prices to where they would receive a loss.
 
I'm not going to argue over this ridiculous scenario until you can provide some kind of justificat (numbers would be nice) showing that people forgo medical care when they don't pay insurance.
Irrelevant to the issue of choice and your desire to take it away when doing so harms no one - never mind the fact that any rarity to that effect only illustrates the imbecility of removing that choice.

You -still- need to explain...
...why I should not be able to make a choice that harms no one
...why I should pay a penalty when I incur no cost and I create no burden
...how I am responsible for the costs/burdens created by other people
 
You are aware supply and demand are not the only drivers for prices correct?
Supply/demand are the Mississippi river; the 'drivers'; you suggest are a bucket of water.
 
Irrelevant to the issue of choice and your desire to take it away when doing so harms no one - never mind the fact that any rarity to that effect only illustrates the imbecility of removing that choice.
How is it irrelevant? Correct me if I'm wrong......---->moral hazard of person not buying insurance and still recieving care is the reason for the mandate. You mention the fact that it removes choice, "how can the party of choice take away someone's choice" was your quote. I mention the fact taking away choice when it affects others is clearly established practice. You say that it doesn't affect others. I say that it does. You mention what about your choice to forgo paying for insurance then forgoing receiving care you didn't pay for. I said that's a ridiculous statement because people never make that choice.

I'm not going to argue about this "choice" which no one seems to make.
 
Supply/demand are the Mississippi river; the 'drivers'; you suggest are a bucket of water.

You do know decresed demand can lead to decreased supply as well...i.e. if only 100,000 individuals can afford cancer treatment then only a handful of cancer treatments will exist.
 
IIRC....
The states are taking the case to the Court. Their argument is that the law, by virtue of its very existence, violates their rights under the 10th.
Thus, harm.

Aside from that, so long as 4 justices agree that specific of the petition, whatever they are, warrant a review, cert can be granted..

And the Supreme Court has rules about whether or not they will grant certiorari. They don't do it on a whim. The actual harm thing is part of their internal rules. The argument that mere existence causes harm is not one that holds actual legal merit.

Then the prior courts ruling will stand and the mandate is unconstituional. Easy enough.

Except that the federal government will still attempt to enforce it. I'm sure real harm and review will happen eventually, just not until at least 2014 when the rules actually come into effect.
 
You say that it doesn't affect others. I say that it does.
It does not because it cannot. It harms only the person making the choice - and yet, you happily seek to remove it.

I'm not going to argue about this "choice" which no one seems to make.
You may run away from the issue at your lesure; in doing so, I accept your conession of the points that you refuse to address.
 
You do know decresed demand can lead to decreased supply as well...i.e. if only 100,000 individuals can afford cancer treatment then only a handful of cancer treatments will exist.
So long as there is cancer, there will be demand for cancer treatment.
That people pay for it themselves means there will always be competition in the market.
Competition always reduces prices and improves quality.
:shrug:
 
Last edited:
So long as there is cancer, there will be demand for cancer treatment.
That people pay for it themselves means there will always be competition in the market.
Competition always reduces prices and improves quality.
Demand requires someone willing to purchase or able to at a certain price. I don't think you understand the demand curve. Just because demand is there at a lower price does not mean the price drops. Production increases due to innovation will drop the price meaning there is additional demand. Price drives demand (ability to pay and want to purchase at a certain price) not the other way around.

Supply and demand is perhaps one of the most fundamental concepts of economics and it is the backbone of a market economy. Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price; the relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship. Supply represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much of a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price, therefore, is a reflection of supply and demand.



Read more: Economics Basics: Demand and Supply
 
It does not because it cannot. It harms only the person making the choice - and yet, you happily seek to remove it.

You may run away from the issue at your lesure; in doing so, I accept your conession of the points that you refuse to address.

Am I in bizarro world? Your whole idea of "choice" is fabricated on some silly "what if" scenario of a person not buying insurance then refusing healthcare when injured on the principle of not receiving a service they didn't pay for.
 
Pretend YOU own a medical facility. Pretend there is no insurance, so the only way YOU get paid for services rendered, is if those customer (patients) can afford, and pay, for those services. Now, in this imaginary world, think about what is going to make the most money for yourself? Lower medical costs so that you can hit a larger demographic, thus increasing foot traffic through your door, or higher prices, appealing to the wealthy, and hoping that you can gouge them enough that with even fewer customers, you still have enough mark up on the services to make a tidy little profit. Oh, but hey, there are other guys like you out there, by the way, with THEIR own medical facilities, too, and they get their own choice on what demographic they want to appeal to. So, watch out...if you go too high on your pricing, you might find that the majority of your would be customers, wealthy or not, flock to the guy offering the same, or VERY similar services, at a reduced cost. What do YOU do? Price your services right out of the range of you would be customers, forcing you close up shop due to being in the red every month? Or, do you make sure that, regardless of your overhead costs, you keep prices in an affordable range for your customers, in order to ensure you get all the business you can?

What insurance companies serve to do, is REMOVE those tough choices from hospitals and private practices. You see, with insurance, a customer need never look at an actual bill. You don't see signs on the highway advertising lower cost cancer treatments, because, quite frankly, none are needed. There are enough people with health insurance to invalidate the need for competitive pricing, only competitive quality.

You want to fix health care, which is to say, make it more affordable to people who are paying out of pocket, you have to get rid of insurance companies. And that's the bottom line.
 
Pretend YOU own a medical facility. Pretend there is no insurance, so the only way YOU get paid for services rendered, is if those customer (patients) can afford, and pay, for those services. Now, in this imaginary world, think about what is going to make the most money for yourself? Lower medical costs so that you can hit a larger demographic, thus increasing foot traffic through your door, or higher prices, appealing to the wealthy, and hoping that you can gouge them enough that with even fewer customers, you still have enough mark up on the services to make a tidy little profit. Oh, but hey, there are other guys like you out there, by the way, with THEIR own medical facilities, too, and they get their own choice on what demographic they want to appeal to. So, watch out...if you go too high on your pricing, you might find that the majority of your would be customers, wealthy or not, flock to the guy offering the same, or VERY similar services, at a reduced cost. What do YOU do? Price your services right out of the range of you would be customers, forcing you close up shop due to being in the red every month? Or, do you make sure that, regardless of your overhead costs, you keep prices in an affordable range for your customers, in order to ensure you get all the business you can?

What insurance companies serve to do, is REMOVE those tough choices from hospitals and private practices. You see, with insurance, a customer need never look at an actual bill. You don't see signs on the highway advertising lower cost cancer treatments, because, quite frankly, none are needed. There are enough people with health insurance to invalidate the need for competitive pricing, only competitive quality.

You want to fix health care, which is to say, make it more affordable to people who are paying out of pocket, you have to get rid of insurance companies. And that's the bottom line.

This is where you and I disagree. Yes, I think it would have differences in relatively small cost procuedures or check ups. I agree it would have a difference regarding pescription drug prices. I think both of those two segments of healthcare are grossly inflated.

I disagree that you would see a drop in the cost of expensive procedures. Knee replacement surgeries, chemotheropy etc because there are input prices that would not adjust with demand. If a machine costs me a lot of money, to use, only has a certain amount of uses then I would never price it at a level below my cost. That is my argument, that relative inexpensive (for the supplier of the service) services would go down. Expensive services which requires 3expensive machinary would not drop to a sufficient extent where more people have access than do now with insurance.
 
No change is necessary. You are never compelled to receive goods and services you do not/can not pay for. Someone who chooses to only receive the goods and services he pays for refuses goods/services he cannot.

The rightwing health care policy - DIE QUICKLY
 
Am I in bizarro world? Your whole idea of "choice" is fabricated on some silly "what if" scenario of a person not buying insurance then refusing healthcare when injured on the principle of not receiving a service they didn't pay for.

Even worse. It's based on the fictional "free market" which has never existed. In the rightwings fantasy world, the govt does not ever intervene in the market.

There's no point in debating the deluded right
 
Pretend YOU own a medical facility. Pretend there is no insurance, so the only way YOU get paid for services rendered, is if those customer (patients) can afford, and pay, for those services. Now, in this imaginary world, think about what is going to make the most money for yourself? Lower medical costs so that you can hit a larger demographic, thus increasing foot traffic through your door, or higher prices, appealing to the wealthy, and hoping that you can gouge them enough that with even fewer customers, you still have enough mark up on the services to make a tidy little profit. Oh, but hey, there are other guys like you out there, by the way, with THEIR own medical facilities, too, and they get their own choice on what demographic they want to appeal to. So, watch out...if you go too high on your pricing, you might find that the majority of your would be customers, wealthy or not, flock to the guy offering the same, or VERY similar services, at a reduced cost. What do YOU do? Price your services right out of the range of you would be customers, forcing you close up shop due to being in the red every month? Or, do you make sure that, regardless of your overhead costs, you keep prices in an affordable range for your customers, in order to ensure you get all the business you can?

What insurance companies serve to do, is REMOVE those tough choices from hospitals and private practices. You see, with insurance, a customer need never look at an actual bill. You don't see signs on the highway advertising lower cost cancer treatments, because, quite frankly, none are needed. There are enough people with health insurance to invalidate the need for competitive pricing, only competitive quality.

You want to fix health care, which is to say, make it more affordable to people who are paying out of pocket, you have to get rid of insurance companies. And that's the bottom line.

Health care is a completely inelastic product. Everyone needs it.
 
Back
Top Bottom