B-Large Posted November 15, 2011 Author Posted November 15, 2011 I agree that end-of-care life is needlessly extended in many cases. But whether an insurance company refuses to pay for an unproven therapy, or the government does it, it's still rationing. And both are doing it because it will save money/resources. Many people tend to have a "what's in it for me" mentality. That's why the country is going down the crapper. But creating another flawed entitlement is the sure path to faster ruin of the country, and it will go from "well, it sucks for me" to "it sucks for everyone." And it can happen well within your lifetime. Whether or not people have the ability to contribute to an HSA is not the government's concern. If I want a $10K deductible, I should be able to get one. I detest the fact that they will require me to get insurance and then remove my choices. But that's what happens when you have people with no business trying to run health care, trying to run health care. And yes, I agree that HDHP/HSA's would make people better consumers and more willing to take care of themselves. But why would we want that? I know we will disgree on this, but this is the mentlity many are left with. Insurance Carriers could care less about anything other than making money, I don't begrudge that, this is a capitalist country. Universal Health coverage has no chance in this country, for many reasons, some good, some wildy unfounded. So where does that leave a citizen who wants to do right, i.e. purchase insurance and has the money to do so, but cannot be rated, i.e. cancer dx 30 years ago? WIFM I can afford $50k of healthcare in a catostophic illness siuation, but I cannot afford 300K, 500K or a million. The ACA gives my family that option to cover our risk, so I will take what I can get. Decisions like that go against my better sensibilities, but at the end of the day we are here to look out for our own best interests on many levels, healthwise, moneywise, etc. This is not a country where we value Social program, or Socialism, so the fact I would make such a me first decision should not really suprise.
Doc Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I know we will disgree on this, but this is the mentlity many are left with. Insurance Carriers could care less about anything other than making money, I don't begrudge that, this is a capitalist country. Universal Health coverage has no chance in this country, for many reasons, some good, some wildy unfounded. So where does that leave a citizen who wants to do right, i.e. purchase insurance and has the money to do so, but cannot be rated, i.e. cancer dx 30 years ago? WIFM I can afford $50k of healthcare in a catostophic illness siuation, but I cannot afford 300K, 500K or a million. The ACA gives my family that option to cover our risk, so I will take what I can get. Decisions like that go against my better sensibilities, but at the end of the day we are here to look out for our own best interests on many levels, healthwise, moneywise, etc. This is not a country where we value Social program, or Socialism, so the fact I would make such a me first decision should not really suprise. There's nothing more to discuss, then. I agree that changes need to be made, but Obamacare isn't it.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97308/dc-circuit-court-obamacare-conservative I think will uphold the mandate. It just makes too much sense For most court watchers, the D.C. Circuit opinion was deeply significant and a genuine surprise—and an extreme disappointment to those opposing the law—because it provided the most authoritative, truly conservative defense of the Act thus far. The conservative Supreme Court justices will find in it an opinion not only with legal merit, but also one with which they are likely to have some political affinity. The Obama administration would be wise indeed to study this opinion as they prepare their defense. The D.C. Circuit opinion upholding the Act rests on two fundamental conservative tenets: an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution and a restrained view of judicial power. Writing for the majority, Judge Laurence Silberman begins his substantive analysis by quoting the text of the Commerce Clause: “Congress shall have Power … To regulate commerce … among the several states.” The legal issue in the case is whether the words “regulate commerce” extend to the regulation of economic inactivity—to force people to take the action of purchasing health insurance. Employing a classically originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, Judge Silberman does not consider what the words “regulate commerce” might mean today, but instead references Samuel Johnson’s 1773 dictionary to determine what those words meant to those who ratified the Constitution in 1789. Johnson defined “regulate” to mean “to prescribe certain measures,” or “to adjust by rule or method.” To “regulate,” Judge Silberman reasoned, “can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market.” Judge Silberman concludes: “There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument.” To a true conservative, and to most everyone else, a constitutional argument that has no “textual support” in the language of the Constitution is an argument that will lose almost every time.
Koko78 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97308/dc-circuit-court-obamacare-conservative I think will uphold the mandate. It just makes too much sense Yes, clearly a document specifically designed to limit the scope and power of the federal government - written by people who had just taken part in a long revolt against a tyrant - was intended to give that limited federal government unlimited power to force people to do whatever it wished.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Yes, clearly a document specifically designed to limit the scope and power of the federal government - written by people who had just taken part in a long revolt against a tyrant - was intended to give that limited federal government unlimited power to force people to do whatever it wished. You go Alex Hamilton!
B-Man Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Not sure how I feel about this idea, I certainly don't want the Supremes to turn into Judge Judy. "C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras" But as Koko pointed out, this is probably the ultimate test of government over-reach, and showing just the "arguments" made from both sides would be good for the country. .
LeviF Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 "C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras" :lol: Good luck with that.
Koko78 Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Not sure how I feel about this idea, I certainly don't want the Supremes to turn into Judge Judy. "C-SPAN asks Supreme Court to open Obamacare oral arguments to cameras" But as Koko pointed out, this is probably the ultimate test of government over-reach, and showing just the "arguments" made from both sides would be good for the country. . I highly doubt the Supreme Court would ever allow that, but it would be a darn interesting show. I'd watch it. At the end of the day, though, I see the Supreme Court running with the ripeness argument and saying come back in 3 years. Edited November 16, 2011 by Koko78
Doc Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97308/dc-circuit-court-obamacare-conservative I think will uphold the mandate. It just makes too much sense So if the government forced you to buy a GM car every year, because it can't afford for the company to go under, you'd be fine with that?
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Next up: everyone in the nation is required to subscribe to the New York Times or Washington Post. Because when voters aren't informed, it impacts everyone, so you have no right NOT to subscribe to either of those papers. And Congress can do that, under regulating interstate commerce.
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 (edited) So if the government forced you to buy a GM car every year, because it can't afford for the company to go under, you'd be fine with that? Don't get him started. The minute you try to explain the problems with the mandate to Dave, he starts saying things like "The government already makes you buy insurance for your car..." Edited November 17, 2011 by LABillzFan
Koko78 Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Don't get him started. The minute you try to explain the problems with the mandate to Dave, he starts saying things like "The government already makes you buy insurance for your car..." I don't suppose he's smart enough to be capable of understanding that driving isn't a right?
B-Large Posted November 17, 2011 Author Posted November 17, 2011 http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/97308/dc-circuit-court-obamacare-conservative I think will uphold the mandate. It just makes too much sense Of course it makes sense.... As a country wi e are unwilling to turn people away to die, and that is good..... But that creates a situation where some people can leech on the system by not paying for insurance and just "show up" and get treated when thy get sick.... That crap has to an will end.... I would like to see a preference on high deductible plans though..... People need to feel the pain of paying for services, nothing like having to blow through 5-10 grand to make one weigh treatment decisions. The good news, tomato paste in a vegetable as defined by our dept of Agriculture.... That promotes health.... I try to get 8-10 serving of hunts tomato paste daily Next up: everyone in the nation is required to subscribe to the New York Times or Washington Post. Because when voters aren't informed, it impacts everyone, so you have no right NOT to subscribe to either of those papers. And Congress can do that, under regulating interstate commerce. But newspaper circulation or lack thereof will not bankrupt this country.... Healthcare, will, if something was not done... And it might bring us to the brink no matter what we do.... Everybody will use healthcare eventually, and not by choice- for that very reason is why Heathcare does not react normally to traditional market principles..... I can skip buying cable, or drive my car for 20 years, I can't chose to not have cancer or get hit by a car.... Yes one could chose to skip care, but most Americans have wives, kids, family or friends that cause us to want to stick in there for a few more years.... I highly doubt the Supreme Court would ever allow that, but it would be a darn interesting show. I'd watch it. At the end of the day, though, I see the Supreme Court running with the ripeness argument and saying come back in 3 years. It should be televised, 100%... The issue is too big, too expansive to keep it behind closed doors.... And, Americans ,ought learn something!
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 I don't suppose he's smart enough to be capable of understanding that driving isn't a right? I don't know if he's smart enough to understand it. I just know he's capable of pretty much one thing: spitting out whatever the stock progressive talking points are this week. Think Alan Colmes. It should be televised, 100%... The issue is too big, too expansive to keep it behind closed doors.... And, Americans ,ought learn something! If only they did this when they were trying to pass Obamacare in the first place.
B-Large Posted November 17, 2011 Author Posted November 17, 2011 I don't know if he's smart enough to understand it. I just know he's capable of pretty much one thing: spitting out whatever the stock progressive talking points are this week. Think Alan Colmes. If only they did this when they were trying to pass Obamacare in the first place. I don't disagree- I still support the bill, but there is suspicion about what happened between goverment, insurance reps, among many others. But then again, Medicare Part D passed with no public forum I could remember, and that had a 500b price tag (and, quite strangely, cost less than expected) many believe this was a publicly funded handout to drug producers..... I don't disagree- I still support the bill, but there is suspicion about what happened between goverment, insurance reps, among many others. But then again, Medicare Part D passed with no public forum I could remember, and that had a 500b price tag (and, quite strangely, cost less than expected) many believe this was a publicly funded handout to drug producers..... And I think it is important to keep in mind that many of the people who disliked ACA, did so because they wanted single payor, or even further universal health. I liked the in between compromise....
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 But newspaper circulation or lack thereof will not bankrupt this country.... Healthcare, will, if something was not done... And it might bring us to the brink no matter what we do.... No, health care won't either (and let's never mind the fact that the "health care" bill is a health INSURANCE bill that does nothing to control actual costs.) The only thing that's bankrupting this country is dumb people that don't understand the concept of "opportunity cost". Which is why an informed electorate is so much more important than health insurance...and why everyone should be required to buy a subscription to a reputable newspaper and read it or pay a fine.
B-Large Posted November 17, 2011 Author Posted November 17, 2011 No, health care won't either (and let's never mind the fact that the "health care" bill is a health INSURANCE bill that does nothing to control actual costs.) The only thing that's bankrupting this country is dumb people that don't understand the concept of "opportunity cost". Which is why an informed electorate is so much more important than health insurance...and why everyone should be required to buy a subscription to a reputable newspaper and read it or pay a fine. Costs are not going down for the foreseeable future, why do people not get that? Increase population, more drugs and t herapies to treat more conditions, a incrasingly unhealthily population, everyone wants to make money off the system, there are huge capital expansion of facilities all over the country... Why would expenditures go down..... They're not.... Your options are price controls, and that already doesn't work, or more money into the system so each American is paying their portion. From there, you try to find economies of scale, an overall improvement of preventative medicine and encourage the shrinking waistlines in the US... Here's the bottom line- Americans are going to have get real with the fact that Walmart and China do not run out Heathcare system, stocking shelves with trash.... Our system tech and expertise wise is the best in the world, even though for dollars spent we lag in outcomes in many areas... when you have the best, you have to pay for it.... We will have to get over this "cheap" mentality.....
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Costs are not going down for the foreseeable future, why do people not get that? Increase population, more drugs and t herapies to treat more conditions, a incrasingly unhealthily population, everyone wants to make money off the system, there are huge capital expansion of facilities all over the country... Why would expenditures go down..... They're not.... People don't get that because people are idiots - or, to phrase it less constructively, modern Americans simply do not understand that money is a limited commodity, and you can't spend what you don't have (yes, someone's going to argue "Yes, you can. It's called debt." That's not spending what you don't have, that's leveraging future cash flow.) Everybody wants something for nothing, including health care, because it's a "right". Your options are price controls, and that already doesn't work, or more money into the system so each American is paying their portion. From there, you try to find economies of scale, an overall improvement of preventative medicine and encourage the shrinking waistlines in the US... Here's the bottom line- Americans are going to have get real with the fact that Walmart and China do not run out Heathcare system, stocking shelves with trash.... Our system tech and expertise wise is the best in the world, even though for dollars spent we lag in outcomes in many areas... when you have the best, you have to pay for it.... We will have to get over this "cheap" mentality..... It's why I hated the health care bill from the start: it violates the very basics of supply and demand. Increase demand, with no corresponding increase in supply, and prices go up. Then CAP prices? I'm against the idea of socialized medicine...but even that would have been a better plan than the bill that was passed, which is basically the blueprint for driving the entire industry to the ground.
IDBillzFan Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 ...the bill that was passed, which is basically the blueprint for driving the entire industry to the ground. Unfortunately, that probably wasn't by accident. Yes, they were stupid enough to do it by accident, but it's been pretty clear all along that they couldn't get single payer through the Senate, so they simply found another way to make it happen.
B-Large Posted November 17, 2011 Author Posted November 17, 2011 People don't get that because people are idiots - or, to phrase it less constructively, modern Americans simply do not understand that money is a limited commodity, and you can't spend what you don't have (yes, someone's going to argue "Yes, you can. It's called debt." That's not spending what you don't have, that's leveraging future cash flow.) Everybody wants something for nothing, including health care, because it's a "right". It's why I hated the health care bill from the start: it violates the very basics of supply and demand. Increase demand, with no corresponding increase in supply, and prices go up. Then CAP prices? I'm against the idea of socialized medicine...but even that would have been a better plan than the bill that was passed, which is basically the blueprint for driving the entire industry to the ground. It's not a "Right", but is it the "Right thing to Do". The US is a benevolent society, were leaders who other countries look up to. While I think there are a small portion of people this UNited States who wants something for nothing, most reasonable repsonsible Americans are glad to pay their way, purchase insurance to cover themselves and their family, just as they do with the home, car, disability risk, life insurance etc. We are increasing supply, all across the country- we are building a second 350 bed tower on campus, adding 100,000 sqaure feet to our cancer center and building three new parkign garages tight now to prepare for increased demand- we try to build funded by capital campains funded by our wealth donors, much of that cost gets passed on for now. along with the mutli-million dallor outfitting of those new facilities with medical equipment. Socilized Medicine weill not be the answer in the US, it would lessen the motivation to create and innovate technolgies that the we and world use. The ACA, im my opinion, keep the competitive dynamics that exist in the traditional insurance market (Companies will have to compete on exchanges, and will achieve the desired goal of universal coverage of all Americans, and if people to chose to pay the penalty, that money goes to risk pools in States to support people who do sign up when they get sick.
Recommended Posts