Unconstitutionalcare

[Baron Scicluna]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?

Because there are certain aspects to it that finally take care (hopefully) of some of the bull**** that insurance companies were getting away with for years. No more denying coverage on alleged pre-existing conditions. No more putting a lifetime cap on the amount of money that a company will pay, thereby preventing people with serious illnesses or injuries from becoming bankrupt. And it allows parents to keep their kids on their plan longer while the kids are struggling in this economy to either get a FT job, or to use the job to pay back their student loans instead of having their checks deducted for insurance.

I thought this was different because this was the first time a Democrat deemed the individual mandate unconstitutional. And, JohnnyD, that is my question. Yes, our health care coverage system is a mess and, yes, something needs to be done. But it is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing. This law is a fiasco. For all the talk of bipartisianship when Obama took office, this was the biggest indication that he was just blowing smoke. Even recently the CBO found another $50 billion annually in hidden costs. We simply cannot afford this law, and the law does not even come close to doing what liberals want. All this does is tell John Q. Taxpayer he HAS to buy health insurance. How is this a good law?

Well, the GOP had power for almost 6 years. If they were serious about health care reform, they would have done something. They didn't.

I've said it before. Had the GOP done some sort of reform of the worst parts of the industry, such as the pre-existing bull****, or the "Usual and customary" crap, there wouldn't have been a need for Obamacare.

Baron, I agree with you. The GOP's refusal to tackle this in the six years it had the lead is inexcusable. That was yet another thing on Bush's long list of topics where he had a failureship to lead, and he does deserve to be taken to task for this. However...
Bush got hammered for his expensive prescription drug program that was yet another unfunded mandate. Obama's health care reform is much, much more of the same. They are still finding things in it that will add to the cost. Like I said, doing nothing was better than doing the wrong thing. However, I see your point that something had to be done. So this leads to the crux of the argument...yhis should have been handled quite differently. Passing something this huge on a purely partisan basis was a big mistake by Obama, and I really think despite all the talk about the debt limit and his percieved weakness there, the reason Obama is going to lose in 2012 is because of how Obamacare was passed against the will of the people. I think about the Dems prancing past the protestors on the Hill, what a show of arrogance that was. Nancy Pelosi and her friends just added fuel to the fire and MADE SURE the Tea Party and friends would not forget. That kind of set the tone for the rest of Obama's term.

What should have been done was a solid, if not unspectacular, approach to health care reform that incorporated ideas from all sides. Not a giant "F-You" approach. Something could have been done that was an actual positive achievement form Obama...a real legacy instead of what we ended up with. The Republicans showed up ready to talk and were told there was no room at the Inn. This is not Obama's fault, but it reflected badly on him because the entire process seemed so corrupt.
Meanwhile, again in a failure to message well, Obama's staff went with "we are going to add 30 million people to the health care insurance rolls, people who cannot afford to pay for it, and doing this will save us billions of dollars." Seriously, that was the message. Sometimes I wonder if Obama even has PR people.
I think this law will either be struck down or repealed. When this happens I hope the GOP can, instead of taking an Obama-bashing victory lap, actually get together with the other side to solve the problem correctly this time. I won't hold my breath.

Obama did offer them a place at the table. The GOP's lone suggestion was capping malpractice awards.

In other words, screwing the little guy. Again.

 

[YankeeFan]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

But that's what employer-based insurance does. You all go into the same risk pool. But when 20-somethings opt out, then prices go up because the insurance companies realize that 20-somethings opt out.

This is actually the case with any insurance pool, YF, even in an absolutely free market economy with no government interference. Insurance companies know that people with hidden concerns opt in, and those without concerns opt out. Even if they seem exactly the same on the surface. It's a pure market failure and Exhibit A for government intervention into an otherwise free-market economy.

You won't like a lot of what it has to say, but this book has a pretty good chapter on adverse selection, which it calls "hidden costs" to make it more palatable for non-economists:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Markets-Fail-Economic-Calamities/dp/0374173206/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313249330&sr=1-1

 

[J Staley]

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it. I get the trepidation about overly regulated markets, but it seems to me that our current health care system is irreparably broken. So are we just supposed to wait for the innovators at insurance companies to fix this?

 

[Dick Whitman]

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it.

Because of the complexity of society, there are market failures in which the government has to step in and correct. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not to be taken seriously. Even the staunchest serious conservative thinker would agree wholeheartedly.

 

[deskslave]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

Isn't there a problem with it being a tax, since it didn't originate in the House?

The bolded part is what drives me nuts.

Yes, insurance works because everyone pays in, and money goes out to those who get sick. (Or crash a cr, or whatever is being insured.)

But, it's all supposed to be based on risk.

If every 20-year-old signed up for insurance today, it should not change what currently insured people pay one iota. They should be paying very little, based on the likelihood of them making a claim. Their rates should be set at an amount that would cover the new enrolees. But it shouldn't be used to subsidize older, sicker enrolees.

But, that's exactly what people want it to do. And, that's not insurance, it's just another government program at that point.

I would have thought someone who likes to tout his business savvy would have understood what insurance actually does.

This is the same bone-headed logic that said I should get to invest my Social Security money, because it's "mine."

 

[deskslave]

I don't understand why so many conservatives would rather have completely broken free market in a specific area (health care), instead of letting the government even try to correct it. I get the trepidation about overly regulated markets, but it seems to me that our current health care system is irreparably broken. So are we just supposed to wait for the innovators at insurance companies to fix this?

As far as conservatives are concerned, it's not broken. The current system punishes the sick, the poor and the unfortunate. What's not for a conservative to love?

 

[NightHawk112005]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

 

[YankeeFan]

I would have thought someone who likes to tout his business savvy would have understood what insurance actually does.

This is the same bone-headed logic that said I should get to invest my Social Security money, because it's "mine."

Desk, if you have problems with any of the "business savvy" I've expressed, please respond at the time, instead of taking a passive aggressive shot of this nature.

As to insurance, I understand it perfectly.

And, government would want insurers to asses people in ways that are not sound by any actuarial measure.

As **** points out, the current, employee based system is already flawed. A healthy 22-year-old male, enrolled in his employer based plan, is not judged on his own risk. Rather, he's included in a "risk pool". That's not fair.

It will get less and less fair as "pools" get larger and larger. If companies opt out, and you end up in Government pools -- and we all will eventually -- it will just become another entitlement program funded by a tax.

It will not resemble insurance at all.

 

[Stitch]

What's wrong with the systems in Germany or Switzerland?

 

[User 11148]

To define the health care market as "completely broken" is way at odds with the facts. Is the market, as it is currently configured, efficient (in the economic sense)? Most would argue, no, it is not efficient (as in, we can conceive of alternate approaches that might make some market participants better off without making any participants worse off). Mere inefficiency does not mean that government must or even should intervene, though, because there is the real risk that post-intervention things will be even worse.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

 

[NightHawk112005]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

 

[deskslave]

I would have thought someone who likes to tout his business savvy would have understood what insurance actually does.

This is the same bone-headed logic that said I should get to invest my Social Security money, because it's "mine."

Desk, if you have problems with any of the "business savvy" I've expressed, please respond at the time, instead of taking a passive aggressive shot of this nature.

As to insurance, I understand it perfectly.

And, government would want insurers to asses people in ways that are not sound by any actuarial measure.

As **** points out, the current, employee based system is already flawed. A healthy 22-year-old male, enrolled in his employer based plan, is not judged on his own risk. Rather, he's included in a "risk pool". That's not fair.

It will get less and less fair as "pools" get larger and larger. If companies opt out, and you end up in Government pools -- and we all will eventually -- it will just become another entitlement program funded by a tax.

It will not resemble insurance at all.

You're suggesting that it's not fair that 22-year-olds are included in a risk pool, which is the fundamental underpinning of insurance. What you are then by extension suggesting is that people should be charged for insurance based on their level of risk.

So someone with a chronic condition outside of their control pays 10 times as much, because their medication will cost the insurer more than that 22-year-old. Same with those over 50, women (they can get pregnant, after all, and that's not cheap), etc.

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bull**** high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

 

[deskslave]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

I had an appointment just this morning to have my eyes checked, under the free health care system here. I was in and out in under 20 minutes. I was served by a friendly nurse and a friendly technician, who explained what they were doing and completed the evaluation quickly and efficiently. And when I was done, I walked out the door, rather than stopping by the front desk while someone worked out a co-pay.

Sometime in the next week, I'll get the results in the mail. No bill, no unexpected charges, no $7 fees for tissues.

For that, I'll gladly continue to pay my National Insurance contribution, which, while it's not free, I'll bet is lower than your health insurance premium.

 

[Stitch]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

Well, if the private companies aren't going to fix it, then who will?

Why can't we combine the best aspects of our system with some aspects of Europe, so that everyone can benefit?

Because that ultimately doesn't work. Government programs don't stop, they just get bigger. A government-run healthcare will eventually include the government actually selling plans, and they'll have to be cheaper than private plans or nobody will buy them. So with the private insurers being unable to compete, they'll stop doing business. Eventually, government care will be the only option. No thank you. If you think healthcare is expensive and frustrating now, just wait until it's free.

Do you know how various healthcare schemes work in Europe, or in Canada?

 

[YankeeFan]

Every "fix" of the system is designed to further insulate the consumer of health care from the actual cost.

That won't make people live any healthier and it won't address demand for services.

The only way to control costs at that point will be to ration care or cap payments to doctors. Neither will result in better health care.

The consumer needs to bear some portion of the cost.

 

[User 11148]

What you are then by extension suggesting is that people should be charged for insurance based on their level of risk.

What price on God's green Earth should they be charged?

 

[YankeeFan]

And frankly, all it takes is that 22-year-old stepping off a curb the wrong way and breaking an ankle, and all of a sudden the price he's paying is more than fair.

So yeah. Your ideas are absurd. If they weren't, that 22-year-old would be able to get proper insurance (and not one of these bull**** high-deductible plans) for less than an arm and a leg.

Exactly. The 22-year-old should have his rates determined by the risk that he steps in front of a bus.

That risk is pretty low. Set the rate accordingly.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I would have thought someone who likes to tout his business savvy would have understood what insurance actually does.

This is the same bone-headed logic that said I should get to invest my Social Security money, because it's "mine."

Desk, if you have problems with any of the "business savvy" I've expressed, please respond at the time, instead of taking a passive aggressive shot of this nature.

As to insurance, I understand it perfectly.

And, government would want insurers to asses people in ways that are not sound by any actuarial measure.

As **** points out, the current, employee based system is already flawed. A healthy 22-year-old male, enrolled in his employer based plan, is not judged on his own risk. Rather, he's included in a "risk pool". That's not fair.

I hate to base arguments on "fair," because that's just essentially a subjective moral argument, and typically goes nowhere. It's not really an argument. But ...

YF, the alternative is even less "fair." Again, individuals know things about themselves that the insurer does not. The insurer knows this, and jacks up the insurance rate to compensate. At that point, others opt out because the rate is no longer efficient for them. And so on and so forth. Total market failure.