• 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

j-mac said:
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
Click to expand...

Just about every country is experiencing health care inflation, but France's per capita cost is still far below ours. In France, total health care spending is 10.8% of GDP. That's almost seven full percentage points lower than ours. Can you imagine how much ass we would be kicking if we could free up 7% of GDP per year? If a developed country has GDP growth of 4% that's considered pretty damned good.

In fact, France's per capita health care spending is just about HALF of ours. That equates to about $3,500 per person. Imagine how our economy would skyrocket if everyone had an extra $3,500 to spend ... every year!
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Just about every country is experiencing health care inflation, but France's per capita cost is still far below ours. In France, total health care spending is 10.8% of GDP. That's almost seven full percentage points lower than ours. Can you imagine how much ass we would be kicking if we could free up 7% of GDP per year? If a developed country has GDP growth of 4% that's considered pretty damned good.

In fact, France's per capita health care spending is just about HALF of ours. That equates to about $3,500 per person. Imagine how our economy would skyrocket if everyone had an extra $3,500 to spend ... every year!
Click to expand...

Wow, we could buy a whole lot more cheap crap from China.
 
j-mac said:
We need to.......What?

What do Certified Nursing Asst. have to do with this?

I am not an ex-palin....Are you?


hahahahahahaha!


j-mac
Click to expand...

My mistake. I thought you might be serious.

Joe
 
Samhain said:
If they vote the other way, upholding the law, then the opinion better be the most narrow opinion(i.e. health insurance market = the one and only special case ) they've ever written in their life or there will be a ****storm.

I can see the legislation rolling off the press in my mind( Buy GM Act, Buy Organic Act, Buy Local Act, etc, etc ). Sure, some of it would be protest like( The Arm America Act: Everyone must own a gun ), while others would be truly in the mold of "I know what's best for you".
Click to expand...

So heads will explode? ;)
 
Harshaw said:
It's not a free market as long as the paying is primarily third-party.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. I don't expect the company I work for to buy me groceries and I need food far more frequently than I need medical care.
 
Misterveritis said:
Or, it could just be that once governments butt out medical care will be priced like everything else. There will be luxury "Prius" plans for those who want to "drive" a status symbol. And there will be economy plans for the more budget conscious. Free markets respond well to competition. They do not respond well in monopoly conditions.
Click to expand...

No, as medicine isn't really like a car. Some reduction might occur, but much of it will never be low enough for evryone to afford. People will still up, needing care, emergent care, with no way to pay.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, as medicine isn't really like a car. Some reduction might occur, but much of it will never be low enough for evryone to afford. People will still up, needing care, emergent care, with no way to pay.
Click to expand...
If you prefer think of health care as transportation. You can take a taxi, buy a car, take a buss, even walk. Each has different costs involved. So it will be with medicien and any other item the government doesn't screw up.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug:

Your asterisks say otherwise.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between being frustrated and disgusted.

:shrug: I linked you to exactly what you said.
Click to expand...

Not that I saw.

Mostly because it wasn't an error. It was about the nature of the law at issue (criminal), not whether or not that law was valid. The case currently at bar isn't about criminal law.
Click to expand...

So you really have no understanding of the case at all. It had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Fed law was criminal. Whether or not the Fed law could stand was solely a function of whether it had the power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. That's because the federal government has no inherent police powers. They can only exercise those powers if it's incidental to another power -- in this case the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, your reasoning was completely circular and without merit.


:2wave:

Tell me you don't actually have a law degree. Or tell me you do -- I wouldn't believe you anyway. :lol:


Skipping the repetitive junk....

What "relevance" does the Ryan plan have to this case?

What "relevance" does the Ryan plan have to any argument I've made?
Click to expand...

The Ryan plan, as the article I cited pointed out, demonstrates how the mandate is funtionally the same as a tax, which is obviously relevant to the AIA argument. As you obviously didn't read ... or understand ... it, I'll give you the nutshell version: Ryan's plan imposes a large tax on everyone, which can be eliminated via a tax credit if someone can show that they have health insurance. That, in effect, imposes a larger penalty on the uninsured than the AHCA penalty, "forcing" everyone to buy insurance in exactly the same way (except moreso).
 
Misterveritis said:
If you prefer think of health care as transportation. You can take a taxi, buy a car, take a buss, even walk. Each has different costs involved. So it will be with medicien and any other item the government doesn't screw up.
Click to expand...

So, what are my options concerning by pass surgery? How about when my daughter needs major medical from a car accident (months of hospitalization and surgries)? Can I negotiate or barter? Sure, there would be likely more fish oil salesman, and they would likely take advantage of those with no options. But do we really want that?
 
Boo Radley said:
So, what are my options concerning by pass surgery? How about when my daughter needs major medical from a car accident (months of hospitalization and surgries)? Can I negotiate or barter? Sure, there would be likely more fish oil salesman, and they would likely take advantage of those with no options. But do we really want that?
Click to expand...

Actually most hospitals and rehabilitation centers will work out payment plans with a person whether they have insurance or not.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's not the issue.

Look, if you think the solution to this runaway cost problem HAS to include every citizen getting every healthcare service he needs whenever he needs it, then you're stuck with our current runaway cost problem, and all you're doing is desperately trying to find someone to pay the mounting tab.

But if you want to fix the problem, you have to accept the fact that some people will be denied medical care, because they have no money and they're not insured, and cumulatively we can't fund unlimited health care for all forever.

Option 1 is stick with our current entitlement mentality re: health care. Give everyone everything they need, and then stick the bill on anyone with any money left in the bank.

Option 2 is reestablish the financial relationship between provider and patient and face the harsh-ass reality that not everyone can be treated--everyone can't have everything.
Click to expand...
Does everyone with insurance coverage now get "every healthcare service he needs whenever he needs it"??? Of course not. At some point either the patient runs out of money or the plan reaches it's limit - or both. Few in America short of The One Percent get everything they need so why continue pretending we will under a government plan?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

its actually the number of accredited medical schools
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually most hospitals and rehabilitation centers will work out payment plans with a person whether they have insurance or not.
Click to expand...

Not for people with no hope of paying. Right now they can pass on the loss, they can charge others more, and most have some payers. In the world he speaks of, they wouold have to foot the entire bill. 50 to 70 thousands, espeically as this would be with the person not working, no this would not be feasiable.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not for people with no hope of paying. Right now they can pass on the loss, they can charge others more, and most have some payers. In the world he speaks of, they wouold have to foot the entire bill. 50 to 70 thousands, espeically as this would be with the person not working, no this would not be feasiable.
Click to expand...

The hospitals where I live will take payments as low as $25 per month. Who couldn't make that?
 
Arbo said:
Yes, they could implement a single payer system, just as they did for SS. I doubt they would have enough support, but they could accomplish it.

And that is 100% different than forcing private citizens to purchase something from private industry. That you can not see that is telling.

What ever happened to all the left's bitching about government collusion with private industry? This is clearly such a thing, but they support THIS government/industry collusion.
Click to expand...
Of course single payer is different and it was the one originally put forth - and shot down, twice. That should also answer your last question as well. Forty years of waiting and this is the best that could be done. :(
 
TurtleDude said:
its actually the number of accredited medical schools
Click to expand...

Which part are you talking about? Waiting lists for those schools or to get licenses? If its the former then simply increasing limits will work. If its the latter then expanding those schools would work.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The hospitals where I live will take payments as low as $25 per month. Who couldn't make that?
Click to expand...

Well, some wouldn't. But that type of payment really wouldn't pay the bill. So, eventually, something else would have to be done. There is no way we do the number of surgeries we do today and have any significant number paying this way. By brother-in-law, who is a doctor, maintains it is fantasy to beleive we will ever go back to not having third party payers.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Which part are you talking about? Waiting lists for those schools or to get licenses? If its the former then simply increasing limits will work. If its the latter then expanding those schools would work.
Click to expand...


there are far less slots than there are applicants-lots of people turned down could probably pass the boards if they could attend an accredited medical school

law schools are different. many people can get degrees who will never pass the bar exams in the more competitive states or jurisdictions. Hillary CLinton for example-failed the DC bar exam but passed the far far easier Arkansas exam-one of the reasons why she followed Bill to a state she considered backwards
 
TurtleDude said:
there are far less slots than there are applicants-lots of people turned down could probably pass the boards if they could attend an accredited medical school

law schools are different. many people can get degrees who will never pass the bar exams in the more competitive states or jurisdictions. Hillary CLinton for example-failed the DC bar exam but passed the far far easier Arkansas exam-one of the reasons why she followed Bill to a state she considered backwards
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the clairification.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, what are my options concerning by pass surgery? How about when my daughter needs major medical from a car accident (months of hospitalization and surgries)? Can I negotiate or barter? Sure, there would be likely more fish oil salesman, and they would likely take advantage of those with no options. But do we really want that?
Click to expand...
Do you believe that in a free market solution there wouldn't be any of a great variety of plans and price points? How is health care as a good or service different from any other?
 
Well, finished reading Day 2 of the arguements. I must say Mr. Carvin kicked butt in it. Even some of the judges that people believe are going to vote in favor of the mandate were concedeing his points.

Mr. Verrilli on the other hand didn't do so hot. In fact I'd call it disasterous.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Does everyone with insurance coverage now get "every healthcare service he needs whenever he needs it"?? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Show up to a hospital, get whatever help you need. ER, Critical Care, Psychiatric, Medical-Surgical... don't even have to be insured. Doctors have to provide what you immediately need.

At some point either the patient runs out of money or the plan reaches it's limit - or both.
Click to expand...

And then they just die? Or they join some other thing that pays for their care?
 
AdamT said:
No, obviously it's perfectly legal for an insurance (or any) company to drop you at the end of your policy period. Generally that only happens if you have an individual (as opposed to group) coverage.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you are talking about two very different things. Are you talking about people that purchase a term health policy so that they can recieve lower rates? Meaning it's good for x number of years. Then at the end of x number of years both parties decide if they want to continue? Yes, those can be non-renewed. The customer made a choice to purchase something that apparently didn't fit their needs. It's clearly spelled out in the contract. However, other individual policies can not be non-renewed due to an individual getting an illness. Group policies can never be non-renewed for an individual due to sickness.

If you have employer-provided coverage you can have the same problem if you are fired, change jobs for another reason, or simply because you're too sick to work. You can continue coverage for awhile under COBRA, but then you and your preexisting condition are on your own.
Click to expand...

HIPPA addressed alot of what you are talking about. The pre-ex period will not start over. My mother had mitral valve replacement (heart surgery) while working for company X. She lost her job there after the surgery, got a job with company Y and was fully covered for the heart issue without having to restart the pre-ex period - HIPPA was a pretty good law - If they are too sick to work, they will be covered through the government - isn't that what you want? Everyone to be covered by the government?
 
TurtleDude said:
Hillary CLinton for example-failed the DC bar exam but passed the far far easier Arkansas exam-one of the reasons why she followed Bill to a state she considered backwards
Click to expand...

Probably because she went to such a craptastic law school. ;)

Can't imagine why she took the DC bar. Everyone knows that DC is one of the most difficult bars and you can waive in from MD or VA.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Show up to a hospital, get whatever help you need. ER, Critical Care, Psychiatric, Medical-Surgical... don't even have to be insured. Doctors have to provide what you immediately need.

And then they just die? Or they join some other thing that pays for their care?
Click to expand...
"what you immediately need" is not what you said earlier nor did your previous posts seem to imply you were talking about emergency care. I'm pretty sure organ transplants, for example, are not emergency care.

I would assume if they're laying in a hospital bed with a heart problem, out of money and insurance coverage, that nothing they "join" is going to cover staying in the hospital longer or any other procedures for the heart problem.

And, no, I didn't buy the "let the banks fail" line in 2008, either. I agree things need to change. If TD is right and medical schools are a limiting factor then that seems like a good place to start. Why the hell are we limiting the number of doctors? That's just insane. Other problems are universal America issues - like the cost of college.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom