• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

From the day 2 arguements that I've been reading...

Justice Scalia:
By the way, I don't agree with you that the relevant market here is health care. You're not regulating health care. You're regulating insurance. It's the insurance market that you're addressing and you're saying that some people who are not in it must be in it, and that's - - that's different from regulating in any manner commerce that already exists out there.

I so agree. Insurance IS its own market seperate from health care. To use an example that others have tried to use...improperly mind you...car insurance. (yeah...couldn't help but throw that in your faces) There is also house insurance, fire insurance etc etc.
 
From the day 2 arguements that I've been reading...



I so agree. Insurance IS its own market seperate from health care. To use an example that others have tried to use...improperly mind you...car insurance. (yeah...couldn't help but throw that in your faces) There is also house insurance, fire insurance etc etc.

It's been said a few times, but the usual suspects keep equating the two.
 
Last edited:
I've said this a few times, but the usual suspects keep equating the two.

Kind of nice to hear someone in authority say the same thing huh?

(by authority I'm talking about someone that can actually decide on this issue :) )
 
Kind of nice to hear someone in authority say the same thing huh?

(by authority I'm talking about someone that can actually decide on this issue :) )

I'm glad it's in the mix, yes.
 
I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage.

Just a couple of articles for you to read Adam.

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com

Health care in France: facing hard choices

Frances system is going broke. And they are desperately trying to find ways like copays, an American Insurance thing BTW, to ease their problems in budgetary shortfalls. Yet proponents like you want to run to these failing systems, even as they are trying to run away from them.

j-mac
 
How does that increase the supply of doctors?

Increase the limit. Currently from what I have heard they have a limit on how many licenses they issue. No I have no proof of it but it wouldn't surprise me. I have heard of waiting lists to get licenses.
 
Just a couple of articles for you to read Adam.

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com

Health care in France: facing hard choices

Frances system is going broke. And they are desperately trying to find ways like copays, an American Insurance thing BTW, to ease their problems in budgetary shortfalls. Yet proponents like you want to run to these failing systems, even as they are trying to run away from them.

j-mac

This was very interesting for the website article you posted - "France imposed American-style "co-pays" on patients to try to throttle back prescription-drug costs and forced state hospitals to crack down on expenses. "A hospital doesn't need to be money-losing to provide good-quality treatment," President Nicolas Sarkozy thundered in a recent speech to doctors."
 
Increase the limit. Currently from what I have heard they have a limit on how many licenses they issue. No I have no proof of it but it wouldn't surprise me. I have heard of waiting lists to get licenses.

I don't think that's so.
 
If country X has outpatient care that costs $7, and our country has outpatient care that costs $700, entitling wveryone to outpatient in country X is going to be 100 times easier in country X. In other words, maybe the care was always cheaper there in the first place.



What's wrong is that we DO get it (one way or another) whether we pay for it or not. Thus a main feature of this problem includes out refusal to refuse.

Maybe and maybe not, but either way, you have to ask why? If something is cheaper there, the question not being answered is why?

Now, as for getting it one way or the other, as we have already decided to give it, the question then becomes how best to give it. I would argue our present way is the most expensive and least efficient way. If you want to argue we revisit the decision we made, we can, but do you really think we'll change our mind?
 
Maybe and maybe not, but either way, you have to ask why? If something is cheaper there, the question not being answered is why?

Yes, the answer is innovation, and R&D costs added into the American system, that we do not pass along when sharing life saving treatments.

j-mac
 
Yes, the answer is innovation, and R&D costs added into the American system, that we do not pass along when sharing life saving treatments.

j-mac

I don't think that's true. Not that you can't link someone saying it is true, just as I can link someone saying it isn't so. But we have a lot of that work done at Univeristies here. And other countries do infact innovate and do R&D. So, I doubt that is the cause.
 
I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:

Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.

I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.

So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.

How many times do you have to be told that this is a free market economy, and it's not up to you to decide how much people get paid. If it were, I'd immediately decide you're overpaid and cut your pay in half and give it to myself, since I'm underpaid.
 
From the day 2 arguements that I've been reading...



I so agree. Insurance IS its own market seperate from health care. To use an example that others have tried to use...improperly mind you...car insurance. (yeah...couldn't help but throw that in your faces) There is also house insurance, fire insurance etc etc.

No, it isn't separate from health care because people who do not have health insurance have a substantial effect on the cost of everyone else's health insurance. Same reason that auto insurance is mandatory and why many states have mandatory no fault insurance.
 
Just a couple of articles for you to read Adam.

France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com

Health care in France: facing hard choices

Frances system is going broke. And they are desperately trying to find ways like copays, an American Insurance thing BTW, to ease their problems in budgetary shortfalls. Yet proponents like you want to run to these failing systems, even as they are trying to run away from them.

j-mac

Look at what else I found that is current to this thread topic from your post:

"It will be the generation now entering the workforce who will pay for the years of deficit spending through some mix of higher taxes and reduced access. All of this is made worse by a looming demographic crunch. With the number of French aged 65 and older expected to grow from about 16% of the population (according to Council of Europe projections in 2003) to an estimated 24% by 2030, the pool of workers contributing to the social security system will be greatly outnumbered by those needing increasing care and medical services."

Doesn't this smack of familiarity?
 
How many times do you have to be told that this is a free market economy, and it's not up to you to decide how much people get paid. If it were, I'd immediately decide you're overpaid and cut your pay in half and give it to myself, since I'm underpaid.

How many times do YOU have to be told that the health care industry is anything but a free market?
 
No, it isn't separate from health care because people who do not have health insurance have a substantial effect on the cost of everyone else's health insurance. Same reason that auto insurance is mandatory and why many states have mandatory no fault insurance.

and yet how many drive around today without insurance? It didn't result in 100% of every driver has insurance.

Also, just curious on how the manditory health care insurance is going to handle the cost of illegal aliens. We have over 12 million illegal aliens in this country. While small compared to the total population, its still a cost.
 
You can not state where the Constitution gives the fed powers you 'feel' it should have, so you say others are dodging, and need to focus? Get a grip.

I have put up the long accepted definition of judicial activism, that you ignore it because it does not fit your needs/beliefs is your own issue.

I already told you the exact line of reasoning that gives the law constitutional muster...

I would not be surprised if the mandate is found unconstitutional on more like a 7-2 vote. Tossing out the entire act may be closer.

tossing out the entire law would be judicial activism because there isn't any dispute of the other posts of the law being constitutional.

Odd, the NPR show today has me beliving they will not interfere with congress and will not strike the mandate down. And certainly would not strike down the centerpiece of a democratic presidents term, on a party-line vote.

The basic case the panel made was that the commerce clause is sufficiently broad enough, that if it's fairly well defined how the mandate is tied to regulation (it appears to be), and is driven by some limiting principle(s), then the court shouldn't interefere. They believed Roberts will clearly state how this power to mandate is limited by a/b/c and thus not some widepread green light on a very wide interpretation in every other situation...and then not rule it unconstitutional.

This is how it could go. And if it goes that way there will be no room for"now the gov can tell us to do anything" argument

They said more or less the same on the eve of the Bush v. Gore decision -- i.e., the court would not "interfere" with "Florida law."

And they were right lol
 
I don't think that's true. Not that you can't link someone saying it is true, just as I can link someone saying it isn't so. But we have a lot of that work done at Univeristies here. And other countries do infact innovate and do R&D. So, I doubt that is the cause.

Now wait, I think you are confusing things. You were responding to the hypothesis about country X having a $7 cost for the same thing we pay $700 for. You seem to be answering only about our own costs. And although Universities do research, it is nothing compared to the private market.

j-mac
 
I think that if the law that mandates health insurance is struck down, then the government should no longer be responsible for paying for anyone's health care in any way, shape or form.

I have a hard enough time being responsible for my own insurance and health care. I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's.

Hell, most everyone is clueless as to what Obamacare is anyway. Myself included. I think the major objection to it is that it came from Obama. No matter what Obama proposes, his hater's will object. Period.

I do hope to see some changes though. But I have insurance and I always have so I really got no dog in this fight.

I would not object to the government sponsoring teaching colleges that allow our brightest to attend to become doctor's and other health professionals, using the money they now spend on the indigent health care. That would be a win/win. Affordable health care and affordable education.
 
Last edited:
Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/heal...tice-anthony-scalia-wont-read-health-care-law

and the right keeps wronging
 
Last edited:
tossing out the entire law would be judicial activism...


Could you provide the severability clause in the law please....I can't find it...

Law Professor Jonathan Turley marvels at the mistake made by the socialists when they failed to include a severability clause in Obamacare - even as he wondered if it might have been part of a game of chicken.

TURLEY: Well, first of all, it was a colossal mistake not to have a severability clause in this legislation. It’s a standard clause in bills. It is not clear why it was kept out. Some people say it was a blunder. Other suggests and I know you know, there’s some suspicion that it might be a sort of game of chicken, that they wanted to make clear, if you take out the individual mandate, you are risking the entire bill to sort of give these judges a bit of sticker shock.

No Severability Clause in Obamacare: Mistake or Socialist Plot? | WRKO.com


Ah, so Socialist Prof. Turley believes it was "A colossal mistake".... Looks like Progressives loose.


j-mac
 
Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Won't Read Health Care Law

and the right keeps wronging

Do away with the mandate and the law is gone.

j-mac
 
Now wait, I think you are confusing things. You were responding to the hypothesis about country X having a $7 cost for the same thing we pay $700 for. You seem to be answering only about our own costs. And although Universities do research, it is nothing compared to the private market.

j-mac

I don't think I'm confusing things, and as I recall, Atticus back in the day did a pretty good job showing how much Universities do. And yes, I asked why, and you gave an opinion on why. I responded by saying I didn't buy it and stated why. I don't see anyone confused.
 
Back
Top Bottom