Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 157

Thread: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

  1. #71
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Car insurance?

    It's not to protect you, it's to protect those you HARM driving your car irresponsibly.
    And health insurance preotects you from having to pay for the irresponsibility of others. On this front, there is little difference. It has the added effect of protecting the insured, as does auto insurance btw, but the primary reason for making it mandatory is to protect everyone else from having to pay for your irresponsibility.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #72
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Hmm, I don't think you really do see my point, which is that this is really about semantics. It's nothing new, radical, or different. What they should have done instead of calling it a mandate and going with the tax penalty was to implement a special health insurance tax in the amount of the current penalty, which would be 100% deductible if you purchased qualifying insurance. No one would argue that that is unconstitutional and it would accomplish exactly the same thing. I'm sure they opted not to go that way because it would have run afoul of the tax pledges that so many Republicans have signed.

    I don't have any great fondness for employer-provided coverage either. If we can't have single payer then there should be an insurance exchange that applies to everyone. There should also be a public option. I do not think that people who can afford basic insurance should be allowed to ride free because their failure to purchase insurance drives up insurance costs for you and me. See, that's a problem with a strict libertarian view.

    You're appalled at the idea of the government forcing someone to do something, but if the government doesn't act, you are still forced to do something. In this case you are forced to subsidize the health care of people who could afford to pay for it themselves. So at the end of the day we have a choice between two alternatives. Either the government pressures people who can afford insurance to buy insurance, or you and I pay for the health care of people who could afford to buy it themselves. I'll take the former.
    Whether or not you hide it in the already stupid tax code, it is still government backed fascism. It would still be unconstitutional. All you are talking about doing is changing when the penalty is enacted. It has nothing to do with the tax pledge. This just tries to paint it as a reward for doing what you are supposed to, instead of spanking you when you don't. I do think people would see through that, too.

    Money is fungible. If we don't pay higher medical costs because they got insurance, we pay higher insurance costs because they got sick and someone had to pay. There will be a slightly bigger pool of money because perfectly healthy people who didn't need the insurance to begin with will be paying into the pool with zero benefit to them, but it won't offset the costs of taking on patients with existing conditions who they pay thousands a month for and only get a couple hundred.

    Saying I'm simply appalled that the government is forcing me to do something is a case of reducto ad absurdum. I'm appalled that they have given themselves and private companies immeasurable new power and dictated a tremendous change to employer/employee relationships in every other business when simplifying the problem makes a much better answer.
    Saying that either the government dictates the purchasing of citizens or we split the lost cost is a false dichotomy. There are other options available, including moving it to free market instead of employment incentives. Hell, even socialized medicine is another option (even though it's not a very good one for the US).

    I could get into how government caused our system of fringe benefits with pay freezes and other displays government ineptitude, but I think that might be expanding the point too far.
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  3. #73
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Keridan View Post
    Whether or not you hide it in the already stupid tax code, it is still government backed fascism. It would still be unconstitutional. All you are talking about doing is changing when the penalty is enacted. It has nothing to do with the tax pledge. This just tries to paint it as a reward for doing what you are supposed to, instead of spanking you when you don't. I do think people would see through that, too.
    First, it isn't unconstitutional as constituted, and second, it CERTAINLY would not be unconstitutional if it was constructed as a tax incentive, like the hundreds of tax incentives we already have in the tax code. But we can't have anything that looks like a new tax because one side of the aisle has bowed down to an unelected idealogue and shackled themselves to a ridiculous pledge.

    Money is fungible. If we don't pay higher medical costs because they got insurance, we pay higher insurance costs because they got sick and someone had to pay. There will be a slightly bigger pool of money because perfectly healthy people who didn't need the insurance to begin with will be paying into the pool with zero benefit to them, but it won't offset the costs of taking on patients with existing conditions who they pay thousands a month for and only get a couple hundred.
    You seem not to get the insurance concept. Everyone NEEDS health insurance because anyone can be fall ill at any time, and treatment for any moderately serious condition can bankrupt anyone who isn't very wealthy. Younger people may pay a little more than they should from an actuarial standpoint, but that evens out over time (as they will pay less than they should later in life).

    The only way expanding the insurance pool doesn't benefit the already insured is if the government stops providing free medical care for those who don't have insurance. If you are a true libertarian then I'm sure you would support that. And that presents us with another (not false) dichotomy. Either people are forced to buy insurance or pay a relatively small fine and they can receive medical care no matter what, OR people can elect not to buy insurance and if they get very ill, they run through all their money until they run out, at which point they are sent home (or out on the street) to die. I'm sure you're fine with that but I'm not and I suspect most Americans aren't either.

    Saying I'm simply appalled that the government is forcing me to do something is a case of reducto ad absurdum.
    No it isn't. You might want to brush up on your Latin.

    I'm appalled that they have given themselves and private companies immeasurable new power and dictated a tremendous change to employer/employee relationships in every other business when simplifying the problem makes a much better answer.
    Saying that either the government dictates the purchasing of citizens or we split the lost cost is a false dichotomy. There are other options available, including moving it to free market instead of employment incentives. Hell, even socialized medicine is another option (even though it's not a very good one for the US).

    I could get into how government caused our system of fringe benefits with pay freezes and other displays government ineptitude, but I think that might be expanding the point too far.
    I think that it's a gross exaggeration to say that health care reform has given the government "immeasurable new power." Unfortunately the whole thing is quite modest in its scope. It expands coverage, provides most Americans more choice, and generally provides better coverage. A free market approach does not work very well when there is a huge imbalance in bargaining power, access to information, and knowledge. That's a big part of the reason our current system costs twice as much as most other systems.

  4. #74
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    ATL
    Last Seen
    07-07-12 @ 09:00 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I think that it's a gross exaggeration to say that health care reform has given the government "immeasurable new power."
    It's an outlandish lie to claim this law is not a massive intrusion of the federal government into our lives. Every person that had a health plan they enjoyed will have them changed or canceled. Every breathing person in the US will now be forced to buy an insurance plan or be fined. Every person in the country will now be impacted by an unelected group of bureaucrats that will serve on a new federal Death Panel.
    I love the smell of burning moonbat in the morning.

  5. #75
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    First, it isn't unconstitutional as constituted, and second, it CERTAINLY would not be unconstitutional if it was constructed as a tax incentive, like the hundreds of tax incentives we already have in the tax code. But we can't have anything that looks like a new tax because one side of the aisle has bowed down to an unelected idealogue and shackled themselves to a ridiculous pledge.
    Well, constitutionality is still to be determined, I grant that. Incentive is certainly a misleading term here, however. It's not a gift if you start with the penalty in higher taxes and simply get that removed. It is a punishment if you don't buy a private product. That's fascism, which is not okay in my book.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You seem not to get the insurance concept. Everyone NEEDS health insurance because anyone can be fall ill at any time, and treatment for any moderately serious condition can bankrupt anyone who isn't very wealthy. Younger people may pay a little more than they should from an actuarial standpoint, but that evens out over time (as they will pay less than they should later in life).

    The only way expanding the insurance pool doesn't benefit the already insured is if the government stops providing free medical care for those who don't have insurance. If you are a true libertarian then I'm sure you would support that. And that presents us with another (not false) dichotomy. Either people are forced to buy insurance or pay a relatively small fine and they can receive medical care no matter what, OR people can elect not to buy insurance and if they get very ill, they run through all their money until they run out, at which point they are sent home (or out on the street) to die. I'm sure you're fine with that but I'm not and I suspect most Americans aren't either.
    As the victim of two heart attacks, I have some knowledge of insurance. My first heart attack came when I was 26 and had no insurance. I was healthy (as in worked out daily healthy). I had no insurance. What I did have was the power to negotiate and the kindness of strangers. A privately funded charity helped with a portion of the bills. On the rest, I negotiated with the hospital, surgeons, and physicians. I paid ~15% of the bills and everyone came out in the positive. Insurance would have been better, but I did find another option.

    Your dichotomy, as stated, would be appropriate if it wasn't based on a false premise. I'm a libertarian, but that means wanting the least government we can responsibly have. I'm not for removing health care for those who can't afford it. I am for finding a better option.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No it isn't. You might want to brush up on your Latin.
    Reductio ad absurdum translates into "reduction to the absurd". While the general definition as a debate fallacy may not directly apply, you oversimplified my stance to one absurd statement. So, the latin translation does actually favor my statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I think that it's a gross exaggeration to say that health care reform has given the government "immeasurable new power." Unfortunately the whole thing is quite modest in its scope. It expands coverage, provides most Americans more choice, and generally provides better coverage. A free market approach does not work very well when there is a huge imbalance in bargaining power, access to information, and knowledge. That's a big part of the reason our current system costs twice as much as most other systems.
    Again, there are other options. I stated before that I would rather the government streamlined it into more of true cost/demand issue.

    I don't disagree that health care has problems and needs some sort of reform. That goes under the word responsible in my statement above.
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  6. #76
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by conservativeguy View Post
    It's an outlandish lie to claim this law is not a massive intrusion of the federal government into our lives. Every person that had a health plan they enjoyed will have them changed or canceled.
    I think you need a cite for that.

    Every breathing person in the US will now be forced to buy an insurance plan or be fined.
    That's a baldfaced lie. There is no mandate for low-income folks. For everyone else there is already a mandate. Those of us who are responsible and have insurance are mandated to pay for the health insurance of those who can afford it but choose to be free riders on our backs.

    Every person in the country will now be impacted by an unelected group of bureaucrats that will serve on a new federal Death Panel.
    You make me laugh.

  7. #77
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Keridan View Post
    Well, constitutionality is still to be determined, I grant that. Incentive is certainly a misleading term here, however. It's not a gift if you start with the penalty in higher taxes and simply get that removed. It is a punishment if you don't buy a private product. That's fascism, which is not okay in my book.
    That is how all tax incentives work, and I acknowledge that you don't like them.

    As the victim of two heart attacks, I have some knowledge of insurance. My first heart attack came when I was 26 and had no insurance. I was healthy (as in worked out daily healthy). I had no insurance. What I did have was the power to negotiate and the kindness of strangers. A privately funded charity helped with a portion of the bills. On the rest, I negotiated with the hospital, surgeons, and physicians. I paid ~15% of the bills and everyone came out in the positive. Insurance would have been better, but I did find another option.
    Wow, that's rough. But you are being way too kind to yourself when you claim that "everyone came out in the positive." You were foolish not to have insurance and lucky that doctors and hospitals chose to treat you without it. In the end they LOST MONEY on your care, making only 15 cents on the dollar. Did that come out of their pockets? Hell no. It came out of everyone's pocket who wasn't irresponsible and did have health insurance, because doctors and hospitals specifically raise rates to accommodate indigent care.

  8. #78
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    That is how all tax incentives work, and I acknowledge that you don't like them.
    Where is my penalty for not buying a house this year? I don't like incentives for many reasons. That much is true. This is just hiding a penalty. I acknowledge this is semantics, but it still comes down to forcing a purchase of a private product.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Wow, that's rough. But you are being way too kind to yourself when you claim that "everyone came out in the positive." You were foolish not to have insurance and lucky that doctors and hospitals chose to treat you without it. In the end they LOST MONEY on your care, making only 15 cents on the dollar. Did that come out of their pockets? Hell no. It came out of everyone's pocket who wasn't irresponsible and did have health insurance, because doctors and hospitals specifically raise rates to accommodate indigent care.
    I stated that what came out of my pocket was ~15%. The charity wasn't a drop in the bucket and added considerably to that percentage. I generally avoid using anecdotal evidence, but I did start this one, so I will expound a little bit.

    I had several discussions with the billing department at the time. The whole process took a long time and much talk. Basically, they admitted that in the case of heart attacks like mine (where the procedure requires a catheter, as opposed to open heart surgery and extensive life support during the process) the actual cost of services rendered was ~20%. They made that and more between myself and the charity. The rest falls under what every company has. It's called costs of doing business.

    Subsequently, I also worked as a hospital administrator for a few years. I could go on for several pages about the things you learn being in meetings where administrators dictate to physicians and nurses about how to extort more money. I could also go on for pages about how much of those discussions were dictated solely and trying to recoup money lost due to medicare and medicaid legislation. It's the stuff that doesn't make the news because it has to do with boring topics or ones requiring degrees to understand. It also involves considerable understanding of the indirect costs.

    One reason health care is so expensive is because government involvement means they make less on anyone using that service. There is a big reason so many offices refuse medicare patients. They lose too much money when the government steps in.

    These are the ones I'm supposed to trust to run an even grander scale change?

    I wish I'd had insurance. I would even donate to a program to educate folks on the danger of not having insurance. I would advocate better advertising from insurance companies in this regard if they weren't guaranteed sales through companies.
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  9. #79
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,981
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    So, what do you think will happen to the health insurance companies should this thing pass?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  10. #80
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Car insurance?

    It's not to protect you, it's to protect those you HARM driving your car irresponsibly.
    Not uninsured/underinsured and also not liability limits are in essence protecting you from lawsuit (if your limits are high enough).
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •