Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    So, Obama care has made it to the supreme court.
    Question to opponent.What should they rule? Question to opponent.What arguments are being given, do they have merit, and which ones do you agree with? What does it all mean?

    This is a link to the Tuesday notes.. not sure if it is all of them the link is provided by Los Angeles times.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...98-Tuesday.pdf

    An argument for it being const.
    http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-...0,339163.story
    Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr., the Obama administration's top lawyer, tried to argue that the insurance mandate would not open the door to other requirements to buy products because healthcare is unique.
    I disagree that health-care is unique.
    First, if by "health-care" you mean anything that contributes to maintaining good health. Then food is most certainly part of healthcare. So then, healthcare is not really unique it is simply a concept that is part of life.
    If by "health-care" you mean medical products and services such as provided by hospitals and doctors, then again it is not unique because it is a product and service, and it isn't the only product or service in existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The Constitution says Congress has the power to "regulate commerce" and to impose taxes to promote the general welfare
    That is false. General welfare, and taxes are not directly connected. Also, "promote the general welfare" is not a power, it is a goal. The power to achieve those goals are given in the rest of the const. Such as the power to tax.

    Basically, if the court decided that it didn't ,in fact, promote the general welfare it could strike the law down as unconst. "promoting the general welfare" is not something that congress can simply dictate, it is an effect of policies, not a policy itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The few positive moments for the administration came when the law's opponents got their turn to argue. Kennedy and Roberts pressed them to address the unique dynamics of the healthcare market, in which people who do not get health coverage affect everyone's costs.
    Again, health-care is not unique. When I buy anything I effect the cost for everyone else. If I buy electric it will cause your electric cost go go up (or contribute to your cost going up).

    --health insurance =/= health-care / neither unique
    The major fact missing from all of this, is that health insurance is different than health-care. While it may be true that everyone uses health-care (per the def given above) it is not true that everyone purchases health ins or needs health ins. Health care is a product and a service that people provide. Health insurance is a product that is supposed to help mange the risk one takes in regards to the potential costs of the product they have a high likelihood of buying.
    In that way, health insurance is like life insurance, and the gov mandating health-insurance will directly apply to life insurance. Which means Health insurance is not unique, it is exactly like every other insurance. Health care is not unique, it is just like every other product or service. The risks involved in health are not unique, they are exactly like every other risk in life.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla...obamacare.html

    Scalia: I don't agree with you that the relevant market here is healthcare. You're not regulating healthcare. 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 differen[t] from regulating in any manner commerce that already exists out there.

    Verrilli: Well, to the extent that we are looking at the comprehensive scheme, Justice Scalia, it is regulating commerce that already exists out there. And the means in which that regulation is made effective here, the minimum coverage provision, is a regulation of the way in which people participate, the method of their payment in the healthcare market. That is what it is.
    Verrilli is wrong, it isn't mandating "the way" one participates in "health-care".. It is mandating that one MUST participate in "health-insurance" market. If it was regulating health-care, it would simply say you can't receive health-care unless you have an insurance card. Or you must pay for health-care with monopoly money. This wouldn't force you into either market.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The lawyer for the states opposing the mandate, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, built his presentation around Scalia's point: The market being regulated was health insurance, and Congress didn't have the power to force people to participate in it. And Michael A. Carvin, the attorney representing the National Federation of Independent Business, argued that Congress doesn't have the power to force young, healthy people to carry insurance just to make premiums affordable for older, less healthy policyholders. He suggested that a better approach would be to require people who don't have insurance to obtain it when they need care.

    The problem with Carvin's idea is that it would make people even more reluctant to carry insurance when they don't need treatment, shrinking the pool of policyholders whose premiums have to cover the cost of care. Premiums shoot up, fewer people can afford insurance, hospitals and doctors have to shift more costs onto the patients who do have insurance, and premiums spiral out of control.
    The "problem" with the accused "problem" of Carvin's idea, is that it isn't the gov job to ensure a particular product "works". Insurance is a product, and gov has no authority to make it "work". Also, the point was made that the gov is the one making it "not work", because it mandated that people can't be turned away from care at hospitals.

    --so far conclusion--
    After reading the minutes from the arguments. I found the justices like Sodomior overly interested in health insurance working as a product. The fact that if the gov mandated that no one could be denied insurance due to per-existing conditions, then no one would buy insurance until they were sick and the product would no longer work; was used as an argument FOR the const of forcing people to purchase a product and enter a market they were not previously in. The way I see it, it is irrelevant if the product works to if it is const.

    It is troubling to see that a supreme court justice, can't see the fundamental problem with that approach.
    Suppose the gov passed a law saying you can't murder, and it was determined that the only way for that law to "work" was to put everyone in jail. Does that mean we should put everyone in jail? The response to her was very good, in that he asked "that depends on what you mean by "work".

    DISCUSS!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze9k20OZc3s
    The whole audio
    To serve man.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Thanks MT for compiling the current links and summarizing the current issue.

    It's beyond me how the mandate can pass the Constitutional test. I just don't see how that can happen unless they disregard the Constitution.

    One thing I don't understand or would like to understand better is what would happen with the bill if the mandate was removed and struck down by the Court?

    I listened to some of the audio hearings on Tuesday. It was interesting and educational to listen to the dialogue between the Justices and the Solicitor General. I don't think the Solicitor General Don Verrilli did a very good job in defending the insurance issue. But that's just my opinion.

    Here's a short excerpt from the hearings:

    JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?

    SOLICITOR GENERAL DON VERRILLI: That's not what's going on here, Justice Kennedy, and we are not seeking to defend the law on that basis.

    In this case, the -- what is being regulated is the method of financing health, the purchase of health care.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO: Do you think there is a, a market for burial services?

    VERRILLI: For burial services?

    JUSTICE ALITO: Yes.

    VERRILLI: Yes, Justice Alito, I think there is.

    JUSTICE ALITO: All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, "You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else."

    Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?

    VERRILLI: No, that -

    JUSTICE ALITO: And if that's true, why isn't it equally artificial to say that somebody who is doing absolutely nothing about health care is financing health care services?

    VERRILLI: It's, I think it's completely different. The -- and the reason is that the, the burial example is not -- the difference is here we are regulating the method by which you are paying for something else -- health care -- and the insurance requirement
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE ALITO: But isn't that a very small part of what the mandate is doing? You can correct me if these figures are wrong, but it appears to me that the CBO has estimated that the average premium for a single insurance policy in the non-group market would be roughly $5,800 in -- in 2016.

    Respondents -- the economists have supported -- the Respondents estimate that a young, healthy individual targeted by the mandate on average consumes about $854 in health services each year. So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the act wishes to serve, but isn't -- if those figures are right, isn't it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.

    VERRILLI: No, I think that -- I do think that's what the Respondents argue. It's just not right. I think it -- it really gets to a fundamental problem with their argument.

    JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: If you're going to have insurance, that's how insurance works.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Could you help -- help me with this. Assume for the moment -- you may disagree. Assume for the moment that this is unprecedented, this is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce. If that is so, do you not have a heavy burden of justification?

    I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?

    VERRILLI: So two things about that, Justice Kennedy. First, we think this is regulation of people's participation in the health care market, and all -- all this minimum coverage provision does is say that, instead of requiring insurance at the point of sale, that Congress has the authority under the commerce power and the necessary proper power to ensure that people have insurance in advance of the point of sale because of the unique nature of this market, because this is a market in which -- in which you -- although most of the population is in the market most of the time -- 83 percent visit a physician every year; 96 percent over a five-year period -- so virtually everybody in society is in this market, and you've got to pay for the health care you get, the predominant way in which it's -- in which it's paid for is insurance, and -- and the Respondents agree that Congress could require that you have insurance in order to get health care or forbid health care from being provided
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, then your question is whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause. Can you identify for us some limits on the Commerce Clause?

    VERRILLI: Yes. The -- the rationale purely under the Commerce Clause that we're advocating here would not justify forced purchases of commodities for the purpose of stimulating demand. We -- the -- it would not justify purchases of insurance for the purposes -- in situations in which insurance doesn't serve as the method of payment for service -

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But why not? If Congress -- if Congress says that the interstate commerce is Affected, isn't, according to your view, that the end of the analysis.

    VERRILLI: No. The, the -- we think that in a -- when -- the difference between those situations and this situation is that in those situations, Your Honor, Congress would be moving to create commerce. Here Congress is regulating existing commerce, economic activity that is already going on, people's participation in the health care market, and is regulating to deal with existing effects of existing commerce.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: Oh, no, it's not. They all involved commerce. There was no doubt that was what regulated was commerce. And here you're regulating somebody who isn't covered.

    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 difference from regulating in any manner commerce that already exists out there.

    VERRILLI: Well, to the extent that we are looking at the comprehensive scheme, Justice Scalia, it is regulating commerce that already exists out there. And the means in which that regulation is made effective here, the minimum coverage provision, is a regulation of the way in which people participate, the method of their payment in the health care market. That is what it is.

    And I do think, Justice Kennedy, getting back to the question you asked before, what -- what matters here is whether Congress is choosing a tool that's reasonably adapted to the problem that Congress is confronting. And that may mean that the tool is different from a tool that Congress has chosen to use in the past. That's not something that counts against the provision in a Commerce Clause analysis.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Wait. That's -- that's -it's both "Necessary and Proper." What you just said addresses what's necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we've held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure.

    The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

    And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

    VERRILLI: I don't think so, Justice Kennedy, because it is predicated on the participation of these individuals in the market for health care services. Now, it happens to be that this is a market in which, aside from the groups that the statute excludes, virtually everybody participates. But it is a regulation of their participation in that market.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

    JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: And this is especially true, isn't it, General -

    VERRILLI: -- because that's the judgment Congress has made.

    JUSTICE KAGAN: -- Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?

    VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you're young and healthy one day, but you don't stay that way. And the -- the system works over time. And so I just don't think it's a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think -- a problem I think is important to understand -

    JUSTICE SCALIA: We're not stupid. They're going to buy insurance later. They're young and -- and need the money now.

    VERRILLI: But that's -

    JUSTICE SCALIA: When -- when they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us. But -

    VERRILLI: That's -- that's -

    JUSTICE SCALIA: -- I don't know why you think that they're never going to buy it.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-on-obamacare/
    .
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    @Eye4Magic
    Thanks, this is really a huge and important issue and I agree with your overall impression. Also, excellent quote, I was able to read the PDF I linked, so I read exactly what you quoted before and it stood out to me. Props for bringing it up directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by VERRILLI (PRO OBAMA CARE)
    VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you're young and healthy one day, but you don't stay that way. And the -- the system works over time. And so I just don't think it's a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think -- a problem I think is important to understand -
    This is an admission that they are regulating people who are not in the "health-insurance" commerce. It says there are people who don't need insurance because their risk is low, so they are not or choose not to be in the market for it. The gov (verrilli) is convolution "health-care" with "health-insurance". I myself do not have health-insurance, but I do receive "health-care", and for those services I pay cash or I don't go. So I am not effecting the commerce of others receiving health-care(other than to subsiding those who don't pay, simply by paying what I owe). This law would then force me into a market to purchase a product that I do not want or need at this time.

    The justification is that I will be in the market later, and that the system of insurance doesn't work on paper unless people who by definition don't need it, pay for it. But that reasoning applies to a great many other things... like burial insurance.

    --Underlying tone--
    I think the justices recognize (except for the ones that seem to be defending it from the bench) that this is going to change the relationship between the citizen and the gov. It is that new relationship which is unconst, because it was never an intended power or even concern of he gov. The justices ask, "what is the limit" because once the gov has the responsibility of your health, and your decisions regarding your health are labeled as "commerce that effects the entire nation", then the gov CAN and DOES have the authority to make you purchase broccoli, in order that your healthcare will be addressed, and your future needs, and the way your eating habits effect everyone else who has to subsidize your care related to over-weight.
    It is no stretch to think that the gov will take actions to reduce it's costs, not by cutting people from programs, but by getting more involved in "health choices". no longer will the Gov being a 3rd party quality checker, they will be co-investors in your food choices. How else will the gov effect one of the major causes of death and disease in America?

    Quote Originally Posted by EYE4
    One thing I don't understand or would like to understand better is what would happen with the bill if the mandate was removed and struck down by the Court?
    It is said that the mandate is the backbone of the bill. So that the other laws are payed for by the expectation that millions of people will be forced into purchasing health-insurance. For example, the regulation that insurance companies can not decline coverage based on per-existing conditions. The justices (somewhere) recognized that without forcing those who don't need insurance to purchase it, and in conjunction with the new law, people don't have to buy insurance until after they are sick. In other-words, without the mandate the law is absolutely destructive to the entire idea of insurance, to which the justices keep saying "but it won't work without it". (again, not grasping that their job is not to make a law "work" but to rule on it's constitutionality). The objection along those lines has been that the Gov is creating this problem, and taking upon itself powers it has not been given, in order to fix it.
    There was mention of how the gov prevents the one product that young people do want, which is catastrophic health insurance, or insurance that targets that specific class of risk which people simply can't afford if it hits them... Sort of like death to the main income earner, that is a risk families simply can't handle.


    Think if the gov passed a law that said the roads needed to be licked clean every day. Then put in a mandate that everyone go to the road and lick "their portion"/"fair share" or whatever buzz word they wish to use. The justices who must decide if the mandate is const respond.. but the roads won't get licked clean if we don't have a mandate. That is an example of the gov creating a problem then using powers they don't have to "fix" it. That is exactly what is happening here under the idea that "everyone uses it or effects it". I'm sure everyone is going to step on road at some point in their life, so then they are responsible for how the road is maintained.... so they must lick it, because that is how the gov says roads are maintained. It's a circular argument that creates powers.

    Anyway, that is how I understand it, and I'm honestly waiting for a valid argument from the Gov side, and if they never offer one.. what in the world are the justices that vote to uphold it thinking?
    To serve man.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL2evgtNU28


    The last day of argumentation, audio linked above.

    I find something very nice, and that is a sort of candid discussion that goes on. Listening to the justices I like the fact that the justices will ask "so you want my ruling to say "x". The lawyers are not simply arguing that their position is correct, they are actually co-developers in the written ruling of the court.

    I was surprised by the tone, and found it refreshing.
    To serve man.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Supreme court arguments are certainly interesting. There is an understanding everyone is smart and a focus on what the rulings should be rather than simply arguing a political or philosophical position. There is a nice mix of theory of law and practical application. As much as folks bash on the court I think its one of the parts of our government that works pretty well and I have some faith that they are pretty far from corruption. anyhow....

    I suspect they will strike down at least some aspect of the mandate, but they will also offer some opinions on how something similar can be achieved without violation which will serve as a blueprint to change the law. But... it's like impossible anything will be done prior to the election and what will happen after depends a lot on its outcome.

    The government put up its defense, but to me the principles they want to us are sketchy, partly because they are being as reserved as possible, arguing health insurance / health care is a unique and unusual market. And while I agree it is special, I don't think it is unique.

    I don't agree with those saying this is a huge matter of freedom or not (the bill itself). What the court decides is, but even if they uphold it, they will do so on narrow grounds that would still insist on limits to the commerce clause such that it only applies to this market or markets with some given quality and which is demonstrated as a national concern for the welfare of the people etc...

    People who get insurance from work aren't affected. This is the bulk of the population.
    People with private insurance aren't affected.
    People without any insurance because they can't afford it will get it subsidized. (not a violation of rights)
    Only those who could afford it but choose to pay out of pocket are forced to do something they have already chosen not to. This is a pretty small number of people. (http://www.insuranceproviders.com/ca...-refuse-to-buy) about 2% of the US according to this article.

    Now if its unconstitutional, then the number doesn't really matter, but I'm talking here more about the level of alarm and caterwalling over the "massive overreach" that people are talking about. So 2% of folks have to pay more for health care but get covered for catastrophes they may suffer. On the scale of Orwelian nightmares I'd rank it pretty low.

    This is really only a minor skirmish in the overall health care battle in the US. We are trying to walk a middle ground between socialized medicine and every man for themselves and its not going to be easy.

    I'd say the law is an over reach. Like laws against smoking and some other things, I think it is probably a good idea for practical purposes, but it's against my political principles.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't agree with those saying this is a huge matter of freedom or not (the bill itself).
    I don't see how you can say that. It is the gov inserting itself between you and your doctor, between you and a market that you may or may not be in.
    In other words, an area that you were "FREE" (which is where the gov did not mandate something) you are no longer "free". It is a matter of freedom, the question then is how huge.

    First, I don't think the court should be making up the principles that uphold the law. In other words, if the guys arguing for it can't nail down a specific principle then I think it should be struck down. Second, once the gov starts paying for something it inherently gets say over how it is administered. Take the current healthcare pro-grams like ... medicade. If your child is on medicade then the gov wants you to take them to "wellness visits". On paper they sound great and reasonable, but when you start getting calls from the DR's office and they are telling you that you NEED to bring your baby in to be checked. Well, however minor that may seem it is a HUGE intrusion on my freedom. The gov simply has no business looking over my shoulder. The gov should not be allowed to simply assume I am to stupid to take my kid to the DR when they need to go.
    Now, project that onto the entire population. While it is true that the "mandate to purchase" will not effect many who already have insurance (except in another area), it will effect everyone because the Gov is going to tell you what sort of insurance you CAN buy, and what sort you CANNOT buy. Point in fact, the abortion mandate. Where everyone will be paying a premium to cover abortions. Well, what if I don't want to support abortions in anyway? See, because if you buy death insurance, they use the actuary tables for death and then charge for that risk. If I don't have a risk of abortion, or I don't want that risk covered, then they can't use that actuary table to charge me for it, or at least a company that doesn't is inherently going to offer me a lower price than one that does (all things being equal). So there is a huge freedom issue that crosses over into religious territory that for or against, it is better for the gov to not exercise powers over. (not to mention that there is no good argument for the gov having such power to begin with).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    People who get insurance from work aren't affected. This is the bulk of the population.
    People with private insurance aren't affected.
    People without any insurance because they can't afford it will get it subsidized. (not a violation of rights)
    Only those who could afford it but choose to pay out of pocket are forced to do something they have already chosen not to. This is a pretty small number of people. (http://www.insuranceproviders.com/ca...-refuse-to-buy) about 2% of the US according to this article.
    Well, that is true, and not true.
    It is true that many people buy it already, and the ones that would out right not buy insurance may be small in number. However, that doesn't change the fact that the gov will be MAKING everyone buy insurance, and not simply insurance but the specific kind that they dictate. So it is going to affect everyone. Because an employer may not be able to afford the absolute best insurance known to man, so someone may have dental and catastrophic, but the gov is going to make them add abortion coverage. The fact that there are only men working there be damned, the fact that no one there wants to cover that risk be damned. They are going to have to pay for a service they did not want, and were not in the market for.

    So, I think your approach is wrong, because it generalizes the issue too much. Insurance is not some set thing, there are many many products and some of which would become simply illegal to buy because they will not fulfill the gov mandate.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Now if its unconstitutional, then the number doesn't really matter, but I'm talking here more about the level of alarm and caterwalling over the "massive overreach" that people are talking about. So 2% of folks have to pay more for health care but get covered for catastrophes they may suffer. On the scale of Orwelian nightmares I'd rank it pretty low.
    The scale of effect is not what causes me the outrage. It is the magnitude and the power insinuated. The power for the gov to mandate you purchase a product you are not in the market for.
    That the arguments for the law give congress fundamentally unlimited power, and following the same exact argument the gov could mandate the purchase of anything it wished. Made even easier by the fact that everything can be related to "healthcare". Every action you take effects your health, and once you give the gov authority to regulate your health and it's management, you don't simply give the gov the keys to your life, you take the door of the hinges.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    This is really only a minor skirmish in the overall health care battle in the US. We are trying to walk a middle ground between socialized medicine and every man for themselves and its not going to be easy.
    It better not be easy, because our gov has not power to enact socialized medicine IMO. The gov constantly mistakes "regulation" as "control" instead of it's real meaning "keep regular". If they wanted to regulate the interstate commerce of healthcare, they would define coverages and make a name for a plan, that if an insurer called their plan that, it had to the same as every other insurance agency, maybe going to so far as to say the industry had to offer those plans. But that would be it, if the plans were bad then no one would buy them. If they were good then everyone would know what they are getting.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I'd say the law is an over reach. Like laws against smoking and some other things, I think it is probably a good idea for practical purposes, but it's against my political principles.
    Well, I haven't really seen any good ideas in the law yet. I don't think unconst ideas are good ones. I don't think gov control is good most times. Other than the fact that healthcare is a problem in the U.S. and the gov should be addressing it... I don't see anything good here.
    To serve man.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Now if its unconstitutional, then the number doesn't really matter, but I'm talking here more about the level of alarm and caterwalling over the "massive overreach" that people are talking about. So 2% of folks have to pay more for health care but get covered for catastrophes they may suffer. On the scale of Orwelian nightmares I'd rank it pretty low.
    The entire court system operates under a system of precedent. All it takes is a single instance to open the door.... and then the door is open. Many of the arguments I saw coming out of the court revolved around the issue of relying on the Commerce Clause if the commerce was mandated to begin with. While this specific issue, healthcare, is not Orwellian in and of itself, the idea that the government can order us to buy something most definitely is.

    This is really only a minor skirmish in the overall health care battle in the US. We are trying to walk a middle ground between socialized medicine and every man for themselves and its not going to be easy.

    I'd say the law is an over reach. Like laws against smoking and some other things, I think it is probably a good idea for practical purposes, but it's against my political principles.
    I disagree that this is a minor skirmish. In all seriousness, the very fabric of American freedom was on the chopping block. If the court had ruled that the Individual Mandate was constitutional, it would have set a precedent for all other such cases of "government overreach." Could the government order us to buy spinach, as a preventative health measure? Could the government order us to buy coal, to subsidize the market? Could the government order us to buy GM cars or stock in the company? If they could legally tell us to buy any one thing, where is the legal precedent to stop them from ordering us to buy any other thing? While a dangerous concept by itself, just imagine what could happen in the American lobbyist system... Slippery slope? You betcha. The slipperiest. That is, unfortunately, how precedent works.

    I consider this issue important enough to end my self-imposed exile.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Also, the point was made that the gov is the one making it "not work", because it mandated that people can't be turned away from care at hospitals.
    If the current health insurance system is "not working" here in the U.S., what do you think the gov't should do to address the problem of uninsured Americans who need immediate emergency hospital care for a life-threatening medical event?

    Those of us who do have health insurance here in the U.S. are paying higher insurance premiums because of Americans who are uninsured:

    "The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

    Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group."


    http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...iddentax_N.htm
    http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/...health-tax.pdf
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 1st, 2012 at 10:21 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    If the current health insurance system is "not working" here in the U.S., what do you think the gov't should do to address the problem of uninsured Americans who need immediate emergency hospital care for a life-threatening medical event?
    The gov should only ever do what it has the authority to do. If the fix, no matter how important, is outside of the gov power then it shouldn't do it. Just like if removing all guns from the population would stop murder, the gov shouldn't do it because it doesn't have the power.

    Now, for the practical answer.
    1) They should allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
    2) They should allow for catastrophic health insurance coverage only. (if this isn't already done)
    3) They should legalize drugs so that people can self medicate.
    -- Even if this was done on a limited bases this would cause a great decrease. For example, I have 5 kids, and when they get sick they all must individually go to the DR to get the same prescription (though the dose changes). Things like ear infections can be easily diagnosed by parents, but we must pay $50-$70 (and a day off of work) to have someone else tell us what we already know.
    Medicine is not rocket science and DR mom can do a lot more than is credited.
    4)They should allow DR's to run a cash only, or a Pre-paid visit plans, without calling it "insurance".


    The biggest problem with the current health-system is created by the constraints of the fed on the population. The gov is the problem! Lets get the gov out of the way of the people, then we can see how the gov can really help.

    -Does the Gov pay for home births? (no).. How much cheaper are they? (massively).
    -Does the gov pay for baby formula? (yes) Why!? women come equipped with basically free baby-food. I understand the allowance for exceptions, but the philosophical mindset of intervention and gov provision has driven up gov costs. (I'm aware that this may not fall under "health-care").. I hope the point is not missed.
    -Why doesn't the gov allow #4? Why does the gov insist on making low cost health-services illegal?


    IMPORTANT! It isn't "people without insurance" that increases the cost, it is people who don't pay their health-care bills. I don't have insurance, I took my daughter to the hospital .. but it didn't cost you or the gov a cent. Why? Because I paid my bill.

    I'm all for the gov helping, as long as what it is doing is really helping. What I see is the gov driving up costs, then everyone wanting the gov to pay for those costs. IE the gov creates a problem, and like in Obama care the gov tries to exercise more power than it has to fix what it caused. All caused by the idea that people are too stupid to take care of themselves and the gov must do it.
    To serve man.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    1) They should allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
    Agreed..

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    2) They should allow for catastrophic health insurance coverage only. (if this isn't already done)
    Yes, catastrophic health insurance is available: http://www.catastrophichealthinsurance.co/

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    3) They should legalize drugs so that people can self medicate
    I agree in the case of antibiotic medicine..I think having antibiotics available over-the-counter would definitely save some money.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    4)They should allow DR's to run a cash only, or a Pre-paid visit plans, without calling it "insurance".
    As far as I know, doctors do still take cash as payment...Why wouldn't they?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Why doesn't the gov allow #4? Why does the gov insist on making low cost health-services illegal?
    I was not aware that low cost health services were illegal...Please give an example.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    IMPORTANT! It isn't "people without insurance" that increases the cost, it is people who don't pay their health-care bills. I don't have insurance, I took my daughter to the hospital .. but it didn't cost you or the gov a cent. Why? Because I paid my bill.
    I understand, and I am thankful that you could afford to pay your hospital bill without having health insurance...

    But what about those people who can't afford health insurance, and also can't afford to pay their hospital bill?

    What should be done about them?
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by scarlet
    As far as I know, doctors do still take cash as payment...Why wouldn't they?
    Sorry about that, I mis-communicated a bit there.. of course you can pay cash.
    I'll explain a bit in the next section

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I was not aware that low cost health services were illegal...Please give an example.
    I have been told by local doctors that they could charge $20 a person per visit (about 10 years ago when the price was $50 for a visit) if they didn't have to
    deal with insurance at all and everyone would pay cash. This was attributed to the fact that any bill to a gov health-care insurance was rejected outright on it's first submission. Forcing doctors to submit-and resubmit bills until they were payed or "filled out correctly", regardless DR didn't receive payment for months. On that note, there was a Dr who tried to run his business accepting No insurance of any kind, and provided a service where one could pay a monthly fee and be able to have so many visits a month or year. The fee being somewhere in that $20-30 range. In that case the fed said he was running an insurance plan, and forced him to quit.

    IE, he offered affordable care and the fed made it illegal.

    That is the lines I'm talking about. I don't have links and you are free to reject it as you please. It's just my memory of things I've heard over the years. That particular DR was a national story at one point (not a major one).

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I understand, and I am thankful that you could afford to pay your hospital bill without having health insurance...

    But what about those people who can't afford health insurance, and also can't afford to pay their hospital bill?

    What should be done about them?
    There may be plenty of people who can not afford health insurance,
    but if you have a cable bill, interweb bill, and two cars or a "new" car (vs an affordable new car)then it is really a choice that they are making.

    For those that can't afford medical insurance at all, I can't say that I know the "fix", there may simply be none. I don't think that their problem should be used as an opportunity to grab power for the gov.

    You could similarly ask ,in relation to gun rights, what about all those people who get shot.. .what about them? There too.. I don't know, but they can't be used as an opportunity to remove my gun rights.

    I would that no-one would die as a result of my having personal rights, rights to privacy, or the right to have the gov stay out of my health-care choices....but at some point it is more important that we don't have a gov that is literately up my butt(there are some invasive medical procedures) in the name of the poor.

    Let the gov do what it did for social-security, and create a tax which it designates to spend on health-care, and as people see 75% or 90% of their paycheck disappear into the vacuum of Washington we can all be happy. That the gov is not exceeding it's authority.

    Now, let me flip the question on you.
    How many rights are you willing to give up in order for everyone to have health-insurance?

    Would you give the gov power to tax as much is needed to pay the bill? (I think in other countries it gets very high..like 80's 90% range.) Are you willing to give the gov control over your health-choices as a side effect of the gov paying for health-care? IE in efforts to bring the excessive price down, they start to make say.. butter illegal (they are doing that with salt on table and foolishness like that else currently). Are you willing to let the gov institute some sort of quality of life panels to see if you get an expensive surgery? Finally, are you prepared for the mindset of the population that this sort of thing will help cause?

    And most importantly, can you reasonably guarantee that it will provide better health-care for all?
    To serve man.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the lines I'm talking about. I don't have links and you are free to reject it as you please. It's just my memory of things I've heard over the years. That particular DR was a national story at one point (not a major one).
    No worries...I'll let you slide on that this time...


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    There may be plenty of people who can not afford health insurance, but if you have a cable bill, interweb bill, and two cars or a "new" car (vs an affordable new car)then it is really a choice that they are making.
    Agreed.....When a person in front of me is paying for their groceries with a food stamp card, I am wondering how they can afford that expensive i-phone that I see them using (I don't even have an i-phone)...Still, I do try not to make judgments about things like that--it might possibly be someone else's phone they are using.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Let the gov do what it did for social-security, and create a tax which it designates to spend on health-care, and as people see 75% or 90% of their paycheck disappear into the vacuum of Washington we can all be happy. That the gov is not exceeding it's authority.
    I believe that a public health care option, which is what I'm in favor of, would be preferable to the individual mandate that requires us to buy insurance...(I already have health insurance through my employer, by the way, but I do pay for a portion of my insurance)....In fact most Americans are in favor of a public health care option:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html

    As far as a 75-90% tax`rate to fund a public health care system, I don't know of any country with a universal health care system that has that high of a tax rate.

    Canada has a public health care option, and the highest federal income tax bracket in Canada pays 29% of their income:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...inal_tax_rates

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    How many rights are you willing to give up in order for everyone to have health-insurance?
    I would be willing to pay more income tax if it would help to provide free health care for those who could not afford it otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Would you give the gov power to tax as much is needed to pay the bill? (I think in other countries it gets very high..like 80's 90% range.)
    I am going to have to ask for some support of this figure, because I am not aware of a tax rate that high in any country with universal health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Are you willing to give the gov control over your health-choices as a side effect of the gov paying for health-care? IE in efforts to bring the excessive price down, they start to make say.. butter illegal (they are doing that with salt on table and foolishness like that else currently).
    Please support that certain foods have become illegal in other countries with universal health care...If you can I will concede the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Are you willing to let the gov institute some sort of quality of life panels to see if you get an expensive surgery?
    I admit that I don't really agree with this, but if you can support that this is currently happening in countries with universal health care, I will concede the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Finally, are you prepared for the mindset of the population that this sort of thing will help cause?
    Could you define the mindset you are referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    And most importantly, can you reasonably guarantee that it will provide better health-care for all?
    No, I admit I can't guarantee that for everyone.....People in the U.S. who currently have good health insurance, or people who can afford to pay out-of-pocket, probably receive good care ( I can tell you that I and my family now receive good care)...But in the case of people who can't afford health care (and it is those people that I am concerned about) I believe that having a public health care option would be vastly preferable to going with no health care at all.
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 3rd, 2012 at 07:45 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't see how you can say that. It is the gov inserting itself between you and your doctor, between you and a market that you may or may not be in.
    My doctor (which I don't really have) doesn't enter into it. I can see anyone I like and Obama gets to say nothing about it. I can buy any insurance package I like. I can go or not go to the approved list of physicians. And as to the market, there is only one command in the law, go buy something. While I'm not overjoyed about being commanded to do anything, its hardly a great burden or interruption in my life to buy health insurance. I already have it in fact. Even if I didn't, its no great pain or problem. I'd only object to the law if the mandate came without some kind of assistance for the poor who would become criminals without recourse under that kind of law.

    In other words, an area that you were "FREE" (which is where the gov did not mandate something) you are no longer "free". It is a matter of freedom, the question then is how huge.
    It just isn't part of the scope of what I could call a critical freedom. The freedom not to have emergency health care covered by my own money? Really? Honestly I care more about what shirt I wear than weather I must buy health insurance or not.

    First, I don't think the court should be making up the principles that uphold the law.
    Generally they don't. That only happens where there is no guiding law on the matter. There is quite a bit of it as I understand it.

    Second, once the gov starts paying for something it inherently gets say over how it is administered. Take the current healthcare pro-grams like ... medicade. If your child is on medicade then the gov wants you to take them to "wellness visits". On paper they sound great and reasonable, but when you start getting calls from the DR's office and they are telling you that you NEED to bring your baby in to be checked. Well, however minor that may seem it is a HUGE intrusion on my freedom.
    Yep, and you are free to pay for your own insurance if you don't want to take care of your kid in that way.

    The gov simply has no business looking over my shoulder. The gov should not be allowed to simply assume I am tostupid to take my kid to the DR when they need to go.
    Then you should make yourself less dependent on the government. If you are taking its money as charity there may be strings attached to make sure you aren't wasting that money.

    Now, project that onto the entire population.
    Last I checked that isn't happening.

    While it is true that the "mandate to purchase" will not effect many who already have insurance (except in another area), it will effect everyone because the Gov is going to tell you what sort of insurance you CAN buy, and what sort you CANNOT buy.
    It does not tell you what you cannot buy. That is inaccurate. It is telling you to meet minimum standards so that you won't be a burden on the overall infrastructure. That is the whole idea, not letting people simply use ER visits to cover their health care needs and allowing those who can't afford it to get normal preventative care and treatment. If you have a better way to accomplish that... folks are all ears.

    Point in fact, the abortion mandate. Where everyone will be paying a premium to cover abortions. Well, what if I don't want to support abortions in anyway?
    Don't get one. You support abortions every time you go to work. some of your labor pays a company which pays people who have abortions with that money earned partly by your labor. Once you play the game of mixing your money into a pool and then taking some of that money to pay for someone else's choice in life, well there is no end to it. No one is forcing you to pay for other peoples health care decisions any more than you already are.

    See, because if you buy death insurance, they use the actuary tables for death and then charge for that risk. If I don't have a risk of abortion, or I don't want that risk covered, then they can't use that actuary table to charge me for it, or at least a company that doesn't is inherently going to offer me a lower price than one that does (all things being equal).
    You aren't having babies or running a marathon or smoking or anything else. The point of the exercise is to cover everyone for any common treatment so there is a blanket level of risk for all that is known and accounted for. I understand you don't like it but its not some great injustice.

    What happens now is folks who need services wander into ERs long after their condition has progressed to a critical stage and they stay there for days costing car more and with much worse outcomes for the patients. They can't come in say and get insulin shots, they have to wait until they go into diabetic shock. Its just not efficient.

    There are really two options.
    1. Let them die.
    2. Pay for their treatment in the most efficient way possible.

    or
    1. Pay for it in the least efficient way possible which is the status quo.

    So there is a huge freedom issue that crosses over into religious territory that for or against, it is better for the gov to not exercise powers over. (not to mention that there is no good argument for the gov having such power to begin with).
    Sorry but that religious issue is ********. If you want to deal with abortion you need to get people to not have abortions. So long as they do, a dollar you have touched at some point is paying for it.

    Well, that is true, and not true.
    It is true that many people buy it already, and the ones that would out right not buy insurance may be small in number. However, that doesn't change the fact that the gov will be MAKING everyone buy insurance, and not simply insurance but the specific kind that they dictate.
    The dictate is only that the insurance cover common procedures deemed medically useful. The alternative is dictating that we all pay for the same sort of services provided in the most expensive way possible and with the least benefit to the person receiving them. Unless you can change our society to just let sick people suffer and die without care, then you will be paying for them. At least in this case you do so in a rational manner and get something for yourself out of the deal.

    So it is going to affect everyone. Because an employer may not be able to afford the absolute best insurance known to man, so someone may have dental and catastrophic, but the gov is going to make them add abortion coverage. The fact that there are only men working there be damned, the fact that no one there wants to cover that risk be damned. They are going to have to pay for a service they did not want, and were not in the market for.
    You are already paying for it. When freeloaders show up at the hospital they pass those costs in two directions.
    1. the government which you pay for with your taxes
    2. the insurance companies which you pay for with your premiums whatever your coverage may be

    So, I think your approach is wrong, because it generalizes the issue too much. Insurance is not some set thing, there are many many products and some of which would become simply illegal to buy because they will not fulfill the gov mandate.
    None of it is illegal to buy, it just may not satisfy the mandate. That doesn't mean you can't buy any kind of supplemental insurance you like. What you can't do is buy insurance that will still leave others holding the bill for you when you get sick.

    The scale of effect is not what causes me the outrage. It is the magnitude and the power insinuated. The power for the gov to mandate you purchase a product you are not in the market for.
    I get that. And I am not necessarily a huge fan of the mandate. But I'm also a pragmatist and I do think its a worthy goal to ensure some level of health and wellness for all Americans. I'd prefer a kind of health savings account that is subsidized for those who need it and a government catastrophic coverage plan that is mandatory for all and covered by taxes. But I'll take something over nothing if I don't get what I think is best.

    That the arguments for the law give congress fundamentally unlimited power, and following the same exact argument the gov could mandate the purchase of anything it wished.
    Then you are ignorant of the actual arguments made by the government. They are arguing this is not the case and they are asking the court for a ruling that is limited only to this law aka the health insurance market, not one that grants sweeping authority.

    Made even easier by the fact that everything can be related to "healthcare". Every action you take effects your health, and once you give the gov authority to regulate your health and it's management, you don't simply give the gov the keys to your life, you take the door of the hinges.
    The justices asked them again and again if this were the case and the council for the government insisted this is not how they should make their ruling. The government is not asking for sweeping authority but a specific authority for a specific reason. I'm not saying I agree that they have this authority, only that I don't rear they want more or that what they want is a great burden.

    It better not be easy, because our gov has not power to enact socialized medicine IMO. The gov constantly mistakes "regulation" as "control" instead of it's real meaning "keep regular". If they wanted to regulate the interstate commerce of healthcare, they would define coverages and make a name for a plan, that if an insurer called their plan that, it had to the same as every other insurance agency, maybe going to so far as to say the industry had to offer those plans. But that would be it, if the plans were bad then no one would buy them. If they were good then everyone would know what they are getting.
    What they want to do is live in a country where people can get medical care regardless of their fortunes in life. A lot of nations have decided that is a worthy goal worth spending time and fortune one.

    Well, I haven't really seen any good ideas in the law yet. I don't think unconst ideas are good ones. I don't think gov control is good most times. Other than the fact that healthcare is a problem in the U.S. and the gov should be addressing it... I don't see anything good here.
    Why don't you tell me what the government can do that will get health care to people who cannot afford it and do so consistently and efficiently. That is the objective here.

    ---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    The entire court system operates under a system of precedent. All it takes is a single instance to open the door.... and then the door is open. Many of the arguments I saw coming out of the court revolved around the issue of relying on the Commerce Clause if the commerce was mandated to begin with. While this specific issue, healthcare, is not Orwellian in and of itself, the idea that the government can order us to buy something most definitely is.
    And that is why its unlikely they will rule much that hasn't been set with precedent already. The court also likes to make its rulings as narrow as possible to avoid changing too much. Its how they roll. Every once in a while they do something that seems radical, but often its just an extension of something that came before going well back in the body of law. Changes tend to come in small bites, not huge chunks.

    I disagree that this is a minor skirmish. In all seriousness, the very fabric of American freedom was on the chopping block.
    I think that's crazy. The law is already passed, I haven't noticed my freedom on the chopping block. I feel just as free today as the day before this legislation was passed. I had insurance then, I have it now. The only thing that changed is my coverage is a little better than it was in certain areas like preventative visits. The HORROR!!! Sorry but this is nothing. I've had to pay mandatory auto insurance for years and I hardly feel as if I am a prisoner in my own nation. I say what I want, I do what I want, I think what I want. I have to pony up some cash to lift up my share of the collective good, so what? I am not defined by my money.

    If the court had ruled that the Individual Mandate was constitutional, it would have set a precedent for all other such cases of "government overreach."
    Only if they are morons, which they are not. If they uphold the law (which I rather doubt) then it will be some narrow wording that applies only to health insurance and for a specific reason. Yes others can try to leverage it, but they will have to do a lot of work and convincing to do so.

    Could the government order us to buy spinach, as a preventative health measure?
    No.

    Could the government order us to buy coal, to subsidize the market?
    No.

    Could the government order us to buy GM cars or stock in the company?
    No.

    If they could legally tell us to buy any one thing, where is the legal precedent to stop them from ordering us to buy any other thing?
    The nature of the market and the specific needs of the populace at a given time.

    While a dangerous concept by itself, just imagine what could happen in the American lobbyist system... Slippery slope? You betcha. The slipperiest. That is, unfortunately, how precedent works.
    Not scared.

    I consider this issue important enough to end my self-imposed exile.
    I'm glad you are passionate about it, I just don't share the passion.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I believe that a public health care option, which is what I'm in favor of, would be preferable to the individual mandate that requires us to buy insurance...(I already have health insurance through my employer, by the way, but I do pay for a portion of my insurance)....In fact most Americans are in favor of a public health care option:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html

    As far as a 75-90% tax`rate to fund a public health care system, I don't know of any country with a universal health care system that has that high of a tax rate.

    Canada has a public health care option, and the highest federal income tax bracket in Canada pays 29% of their income:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...inal_tax_rates
    Fair enough, as I understand it, the guy that ran the Canadian public health-care system opened up a private (and illegal) health office. As I understand it, it is illegal but not enforced because it is such a problem.
    General point being (above being true or not) is, do we really want a health-care system like Canada?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I would be willing to pay more income tax if it would help to provide free health care for those who could not afford it otherwise.
    I am not willing to give the gov any more money, until they spend the current money wisely. I hate to drag in other debate topics, but the gov is simply terrible at spending money efficiently.
    And the further away it gets from the people the more inefficient it gets. You would do better to give your money voluntarily to one of the local catholic hospitals (which make up 1/3 of all hospitals in some areas).

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I am going to have to ask for some support of this figure, because I am not aware of a tax rate that high in any country with universal health care.
    fair point, I was just taking shots in the dark..

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...ernational.cfm
    http://biggovhealth.org/in-the-news/...than-the-u-s-/
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK 2
    The upshot is that whereas America's 2007 taxation rate was 28.3 percent of GDP, Canada's was 33.3 percent; Germany's 36.2 percent; England's 36.6 percent and France's 43.6 percent. Japan's taxation level of about 28 percent is at par with the United States'—but only at the price of a government debt that totaled a jaw-dropping 170 percent of GDP last year, nearly three times that of America's. Such taxation rates have left these countries limited room to respond to crises, which is why European countries roundly dismissed Obama's calls to increase stimulus spending right now.
    Now, what they are all comparing is taxation as a % of GDP. Which leaves me a question.
    If taxes for the us are about 28.3% of GDP & the Gov spending makes up 25% of GDP. Then doesn't that skew the numbers a bit?
    I mean if you would take 25% out of the GDP because that is the gov, then what is left is GDP without Gov, of which the money to pay the gov comes out of.
    Anyway, wouldn't that make it higher? (I don't know, gov plays with # so much I have not clue and I'm honestly asking).

    Other than that, assuming the above point is irrelevant, then Canada pays about 5% more of GDP in taxes to get their health-care system.
    I don't see theirs as an improvement as far as product, so I assume we would have to spend more.

    So for me, I still have a question as to how much taxes that would be, and what effect they would have. If you know, and your happy with that amount,or have a preconceived maximum amount you are comfortable with
    I will certainly accept it as an answer (it is an opinion question after-all.. not right or wrong).

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    Please support that certain foods have become illegal in other countries with universal health care...If you can I will concede the point.
    Not other countries, in the U.S.

    Trans fat is banned from restaurants
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436

    It was the board of health that did it. Which I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the exact same thing they would have the power to do to an even greater extent.
    I'm guessing that "pork skins" would fall in the category (it's fried pork skin &fat that is a local snack)

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I admit that I don't really agree with this, but if you can support that this is currently happening in countries with universal health care, I will concede the point.
    http://www.grtl.org/?q=node/101
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    Ever heard of a QALY?
    Quality Adjusted Life Years is a mechanism for rationing health care. Obamacare provides a "panel" to decide on the treatments allowed to a patient based on the treatment's "return on investment."


    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Health-care experts say that the era when doctors offer most insured patients the most expensive, aggressive treatments is fast coming to an end. Rationing is looming."

    The scale is called quality-adjusted life years, or QALY's (pronounced QUAL-eez). QALY's provide answers to questions like, If money is limited, is it a better value to pay for a hip replacement, a coronary artery bypass operation or a kidney transplant?
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    "I think we definitely will go this way for the simple reason that we must ration health care," said Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, a health-care economist at Princeton University. Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota, agreed. "QALY's are inevitable," he said.

    With health-care costs soaring and with growing demands for more access by more people to health care, economists and policy planners say the nation has to find ways to decide which treatments will be paid for and which are not worth their costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    I admit that I don't really agree with this, but if you can support that this is currently happening in countries with universal health care, I will concede the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    "That the British medical system’s rationed failures have not created more of a stir on this side of the Atlantic is indeed testimony to the bureaucracy’s campaign of propaganda and disinformation."
    Rationing Health Care: Price Controls Are Hazardous To Our Health, The Independent Institute, February, 1994
    I am sure there is more info out there on rationing.

    [QUOTE-SCARLET] Could you define the mindset you are referring to? [/QUOTE]
    well, I'm not trying to describe the "welfair mindset" where one thinks they "deserve" something despite not having worked for it.
    I'm talking about the mindset that occurs when one has insurance that pays for everything. It is the mindset that makes insurance companies favore co-pays and what not.
    The mindset of "if I'm not paying for it, I probably won't consider the cost and seek the cheapest price". This isn't a "bad" mindset or "immoral"
    It is just a thoughtlessness of the individual, that thought that makes a person go to the ER, when they could wait and go to the Dr the next day.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLET
    No, I admit I can't guarantee that for everyone.....People in the U.S. who currently have good health insurance, or people who can afford to pay out-of-pocket, probably receive good care ( I can tell you that I and my family now receive good care)...But in the case of people who can't afford health care (and it is those people that I am concerned about) I believe that having a public health care option would be vastly preferable to going with no health care at all.
    See, I wonder about that.
    Because as it is anyone can walk into the hospital and get care... what more can be done?


    Ultimately I look at the national debt and say "No matter how good of an Idea it is... we simply can't afford it".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    My doctor (which I don't really have) doesn't enter into it. I can see anyone I like and Obama gets to say nothing about it. I can buy any insurance package I like. I can go or not go to the approved list of physicians. And as to the market, there is only one command in the law, go buy something. While I'm not overjoyed about being commanded to do anything, its hardly a great burden or interruption in my life to buy health insurance. I already have it in fact. Even if I didn't, its no great pain or problem. I'd only object to the law if the mandate came without some kind of assistance for the poor who would become criminals without recourse under that kind of law.
    So, the gov is telling you to enter the market, but because you are already in the market or intend to be, then you don't mind the gov making that kind of ruling.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It just isn't part of the scope of what I could call a critical freedom. The freedom not to have emergency health care covered by my own money? Really? Honestly I care more about what shirt I wear than weather I must buy health insurance or not.
    so your comfortable with the gov taking a new power of making you enter a market, and it is o.k. because you agree with it this time.

    The fact that there is no limit on this power.. doesn't phase you?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Last I checked that isn't happening.
    Sig, you really missed it. I showed you what was going on in a current program of the gov and asked you to project that onto what would happen if the gov ran the entire thing.
    but you dismiss it because "it isn't happening right now"... no.. It is happening right now on a smaller scale, because the gov doesn't yet have control of the larger picture (it will).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It does not tell you what you cannot buy. That is inaccurate. It is telling you to meet minimum standards so that you won't be a burden on the overall infrastructure. That is the whole idea, not letting people simply use ER visits to cover their health care needs and allowing those who can't afford it to get normal preventative care and treatment. If you have a better way to accomplish that... folks are all ears.
    That "minimum coverage" is already leaking into areas that are not in some dire position.. like abortions.
    There is no reason to assume it will be reasonable "minimum standards". Also, minimum standards is inherently telling you what you can't buy.
    So it is not an inaccurate statement, there are products on the market right now that would become illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Don't get one. You support abortions every time you go to work. some of your labor pays a company which pays people who have abortions with that money earned partly by your labor. Once you play the game of mixing your money into a pool and then taking some of that money to pay for someone else's choice in life, well there is no end to it. No one is forcing you to pay for other peoples health care decisions any more than you already are.
    That is ridiculous. In that way you are supporting racism because your money is mixed in the same pool as a KKK member.
    No, if I am paying to directly cover costs of someone else abortions..I AM SUPPORTING IT. not that round about bulshit.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Sorry but that religious issue is ********. If you want to deal with abortion you need to get people to not have abortions. So long as they do, a dollar you have touched at some point is paying for it.
    That is the mindset that gives the gov ultimate power under the "commerce clause". It is a bunk reasoning and makes any conversation about any specific thing meaningless.
    Congrats sig, you just supported the genocide of the pigmies in Europe, because your money is in the world pool.
    And gave congress God powers over the population.
    It's ridiculous reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You are already paying for it. When freeloaders show up at the hospital they pass those costs in two directions.
    1. the government which you pay for with your taxes
    2. the insurance companies which you pay for with your premiums whatever your coverage may be
    Yes, but I don't currently pay for it in an unconst way.
    To serve man.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    I am really getting a kick how Obama is complaining about the SCOTUS doing their job, and whining about possible "judicial activism", all the while he abuses his power left and right, violates the Constitution, uses executive orders galore, uses the EPA to legislate, bypasses Congress, etc. What a hypocrite.

    According to Obama, if the SCOTUS upholds this unconstitutional monstrosity, that is a good thing, although nobody in Washington has read it, the CBO has doubled its cost estimate of Obamacare, and most Americans didn't want it. On the flip side, if it gets shot down, it is "judicial activism" by an "unelected court". What a joke.

    Morning Bell: Obama Slams Supreme Court over Obamacare:

    The highest elected official in the United States dished out an extra helping of irony yesterday when, in speaking at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, President Barack Obama slammed the Supreme Court as an “unelected group of people” who will have turned to “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” if they strike down Obamacare.

    The President’s remarks imply that the Court, were it to rule the individual mandate unconstitutional, would be acting recklessly in undertaking judicial review of Congress’ unprecedented use of the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy health care or pay a penalty. The irony in all this is that this President has presided over an Administration that is the epitome of recklessly abusing power, at times in flagrant violation of the Constitution, and has empowered unelected bureaucrats to write scads of new regulations impacting nearly every corner of American life.

    Obamacare, of course, is a prime example of that unchecked and multiplying web of the President’s boundless dictates. The law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (otherwise known as “IPAB”) is packed with unelected bureaucrats who have the power to limit seniors’ treatment options and access to care, essentially ending Medicare as we know it.

    On top of IPAB, Obamacare is rife with new regulations, all courtesy of unelected bureaucrats. Professor of law Gary Lawson writes that the implementation of Obamcare “will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations, and those regulations will ultimately determine the substantive content and coverage of the law.” In other words, the future of health care in America will not be determined by the people’s elected representatives, but by administrative rulemakings handed down by unelected and largely unknown agency officials. How’s that for a “democratically elected government”?

    Obamacare, though, isn’t the only example of the Obama Administration imposing its will via executive fiat. In a new study, Heritage’s James Gattuso and Diane Katz detail 106 new major federal regulations that added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. And those are regulations enacted not by elected officials who are accountable to voters, but by Washington bureaucrats who can wield their power without having to answer to the people.

    While the President is throwing stones at the court, he’s living in a glass house from which he has exercised his tyrannical abuse of power. In January, the President cast aside the Constitution when he illegally appointed Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, all without Senate approval, as the Constitution requires. Former attorney general Ed Meese described the President’s actions as ”a constitutional abuse of a high order,” and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said it was ”a brazen attempt to undercut the role of the Senate to advise and consent the executive branch on appointments.”

    And this is the President who said in December, “What I’m not gonna do is wait for Congress. So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just gonna go ahead and do ‘em,” irrespective of whether the people’s duly elected representatives have a say in the matter.

    Now that the President is seeing the potential for his signature legislation to go down in flames because of its unconstitutional individual mandate, he is lashing out at the Supreme Court. To date, President Obama has enjoyed ruling with impunity and has attempted to carry out his agenda without so much as a hat tip to the Constitution. But come June when the Court rules on Obamacare, the President might finally see part of his agenda stopped in its tracks.

    Source
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarlett44 View Post
    If the current health insurance system is "not working" here in the U.S., what do you think the gov't should do to address the problem of uninsured Americans who need immediate emergency hospital care for a life-threatening medical event?

    Those of us who do have health insurance here in the U.S. are paying higher insurance premiums because of Americans who are uninsured:

    "The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

    Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group."


    http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...iddentax_N.htm
    http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/...health-tax.pdf
    This is entirely an separate argument/discussion. It is understood that the government was trying to fix a problem. The problem is that the fix that became law is possibly unconstitutional. As such, no amount of intended goodwill can overcome this simple truth. Should this law be struck down as unconstitutional (and it will), then your questions must be answered. I should posit my own question, why are we treating insurance like a pre-paid phone card? Do I need insurance to cover each and every medical expense? Should their be more tiers available to the consumer and wouldn't it be better to make individuals search for their own insurance plans rather than accept a plan from the workplace? It seems to work pretty well for car insurance. It seems to work pretty well for homeowner's insurance. Why is medical insurance treated as such a completely different animal? People who seek treatment should pay for that treatment. People who are poor need to get co-signed for treatment. People who cannot afford care and refuse to pay for it should be held liable. The level of care should be commensurate with one's ability/willingness to pay for it.

    P.S. I am a cruel and heartless bastard.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by IBELSD
    P.S. I am a cruel and heartless bastard
    Reality is a cruel and heartless bastard. The poor will always be with us, no matter how much we wish for them to have everything.
    To serve man.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    I don't see why Obama's lawyer is trying to argue that health care is "unique." That's really irrelevant. Either the Constitution allows the government to require citizens to purchase goods and services, or it does not. I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted to allow it.

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by KEVIN
    I don't see why Obama's lawyer is trying to argue that health care is "unique." That's really irrelevant. Either the Constitution allows the government to require citizens to purchase goods and services, or it does not. I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted to allow it.
    They say it is unique because everyone buys it already.. IE everyone is already in the market and will require health-care at some point.
    Well, except for people who are healthy their entire life and die of natural causes, and of course except for the people who have a religious aversion to medical attention and would rather Live by faith in God's healing power.
    But clearly those people are of such a minority that we can make them purchase.... O .. wait... damn. I guess "everyone" isn't in the market.

    Now burial.. everyone is in that market, so really burial insurance is more const to regulate the future purchase by requiring a burial insurance in order to die.
    To serve man.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, the gov is telling you to enter the market, but because you are already in the market or intend to be, then you don't mind the gov making that kind of ruling.
    Pragmatically, yes. We have very hard core no-smoking laws in Washington. I enjoy them. I also voted against them. I don't fear the state because of them, but I don't like the principle under which they were enacted.

    Not every alarm is a five alarm fire. I'm a pragmatist.

    so your comfortable with the gov taking a new power of making you enter a market, and it is o.k. because you agree with it this time.
    I don't think its a new power particularly. There are many markets the government forces me to be in one way or another. I am in the police market, the national defense market, the education market, the health care market, the pension market, the construction market, the energy market, the agriculture market and many many more by virtue of my support of the government. The means here is new, but the practical upshot is not.

    The fact that there is no limit on this power.. doesn't phase you?
    There are limits. No one is saying there are no limits except the alarmists.

    Sig, you really missed it. I showed you what was going on in a current program of the gov and asked you to project that onto what would happen if the gov ran the entire thing.
    What if the government ran my D&D game too? That I would care about. But I don't see any danger in it happening. The government runs my trash collection and utilities, they work just fine and I don't feel ripped off.

    I would be concerned if the state controlled all medical practice such that any non state sponsored medicine were forbidden. That I am very much against. If however the government by the will of the people wants to try and pay for poor peoples medical care, I'm perfectly fine with it. If that means I have to buy insurance to make it work, I'm OK with that too.

    but you dismiss it because "it isn't happening right now"... no.. It is happening right now on a smaller scale, because the gov doesn't yet have control of the larger picture (it will).
    I don't buy into that kind of slippery slope argument.

    That "minimum coverage" is already leaking into areas that are not in some dire position.. like abortions.
    Abortions can be dire. Though most aren't. And yes, for instance we could all have our teeth rot out, but that I think is something we have decided culturally is not acceptable or wise.

    I have innumerable issues with health care, but the notion of helping the poor have it isn't something I necessarily oppose. There are certainly limits to what I think should be covered and what I think should not. I'm willing to compromise on those for the most part, but I do think there need to be limits. Abortions are a limit I could accept, but not one I necessarily support.

    There is no reason to assume it will be reasonable "minimum standards". Also, minimum standards is inherently telling you what you can't buy.
    Earlier this year I got a new insurance program, all the provisions that were mandated by the health care act were quite reasonable to me. I was much pleased by them in fact both in that they were good for me, but also they made sense from a standpoint of encouraging responsible behavior on the part of the insured.

    So it is not an inaccurate statement, there are products on the market right now that would become illegal.
    not that I am sure you are wrong but I Challenge to support a claim. to show that some insurance will be illegal to sell under the new law.

    That is ridiculous. In that way you are supporting racism because your money is mixed in the same pool as a KKK member.
    I am quite certain that money I have spent has gone to racists. I do not feel that means I am supporting racism.

    No, if I am paying to directly cover costs of someone else abortions..I AM SUPPORTING IT. not that round about bulshit.
    The whole point is that you are not directly covering the costs of abortion, you are doing so indirectly. There is a pool of money, and some people choose to get abortions with it. Some choose not to. Just like any shared pool of money. Your retirement fund goes to all kinds of people who then use it for all kinds of things. Every dollar you put in a bank goes out to support this and that thing that you may or may not like.

    If you aren't making the choice or targeting the money, then its not your responsibility to determine where it goes and you are not supporting anything or not supporting anything through it.

    That is the mindset that gives the gov ultimate power under the "commerce clause". It is a bunk reasoning and makes any conversation about any specific thing meaningless.
    No, its just the way the world works. The people spending the money are the ones responsible for how its spent.

    Congrats sig, you just supported the genocide of the pigmies in Europe, because your money is in the world pool.
    Thanks, but I take no responsibility for that. Once money leaves my hands, unless I'm directing it, I'm not responsible for it. Likewise when I put money in medical insurance, what its used for is none of my business so long as I get the coverage I paid for.

    And gave congress God powers over the population.
    The founding fathers did that. We just built on it.

    It's ridiculous reasoning.
    Which is why your argument that you are supporting abortions is absurd.

    Yes, but I don't currently pay for it in an unconst way.
    Many would disagree with you (though I am not one.)

    ---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    I don't see why Obama's lawyer is trying to argue that health care is "unique." That's really irrelevant. Either the Constitution allows the government to require citizens to purchase goods and services, or it does not. I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted to allow it.
    Because the supreme court does not like to make blanket rulings if it can help it so the state is trying to give them a narrow grounds to rule on.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 06:21 PM
  2. Team Debate: Supreme Court Decision on Boumediene v. Bush
    By Scarlett44 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2008, 12:13 PM
  3. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 10:40 AM
  4. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 02:39 PM
  5. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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