Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by lawtalkinguy View Post
    The tax is not paid to a private company. Rather, you have a choice, buy insurance, or pay a tax to the federal government. No one has to pay for private insurance if they do not want to. However, those who do not buy private insurance, and therefore rely upon the public for catastrophic medical insurance, in the form of guaranteed emergency room access, are required to offset those costs by paying the federal government a tax. Such laws are perfectly constitutional, and have been so recognized by the Supreme Court since the 1930s. Even this reactionary right wing court would not strike down this law.
    At least as I understand current law, your argument fails in an important area. Law may require ERs to treat me (and I would submit that requirement, at a federal level, is unconstitutional), but they have no reason to expect payment for that treatment from anybody if I have no private insurance (and some of the uninsured actually do so by choice) and if I do not qualify for the already existing programs such as Medicare.

    I can think of no other case in which the federal government requires me to purchase the product of a private company (in what is, by the way, a heavily regulated industry with no free market) or pay a penalty. Sounds like a subsidy for those wicked evil insurance companies that everyone hates so much....

    Oh, and what if I choose to pay for my care out of my own pocket and without any government assistance. Am I not allowed to make that choice?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by angiest View Post

    Sounds like a subsidy for those wicked evil insurance companies that everyone hates so much....
    If you are advocating a public option, or better yet, single payer, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the lunatics on the right have so distorted the issue that unfortunately those cannot pass. But, we can keep working on it.
  3. angiest's Avatar
    Posts
    933 Posts
    Global Posts
    952 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by lawtalkinguy View Post
    If you are advocating a public option, or better yet, single payer, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the lunatics on the right have so distorted the issue that unfortunately those cannot pass. But, we can keep working on it.
    Fail, the left controls 2 of the three branches of government and couldn't get it done. They had a filibuster proof majority and couldn't do it.

    We fought a revolution to divorce ourselves from Europe. Why should we join them in their slow suicide?
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    I say we have socialized medicine in 10 years.
    Impossible. True socialized medicine would require that every hospital in the nation was owned and operated by the federal or state government or it's agents. A huge portion of the economy would have to restructured to accomplish that. I can't see that happening here in 10 years.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Interestingly, since conservatives call for insurance to be bought across state lines (thus increasing competition), that, in fact, would directly allow the federal government to regulate it as inter-state commerce.

    Ironic that a less-government group would advocate for something that will allow the government to meddle even more.
    As if the government is REQUIRED to meddle, or that they aren't already in the business of regulating insurance. Incredibly weak "argument."

    KAM
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The type of single payor I'm referring to is Canadian/German/French/etc style where the government pays private doctors and hospitals. It's just like our existing Medicare system.
    Being Canadian I can say that the model employed there generally never employs privately run hospitals. Instead the government mandates local health authorities to operate hospitals and other health services under it's direction both procedurally and financially. Hospitals are defiantly owned by the Provincial Crown.

    That said Doctors generally bill the Government directly as you describe.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by lawtalkinguy View Post
    The question is whether it has an effect on interstate commerce.


    Edit

    Now, maybe we can improve on our 43rd ranking in infant mortality, and 47th ranking in life expectancy.
    If you remove homicide and auto accidents from the lists the U.S. has the highest life expecancey of all industrialized nations. If we chose not to save extremely premature infants, like many other countires (million dollar babies don't play well in Universal Health Care systems) we would rank much higher in infant mortality. We have the highest survivability rates for four major cancers and for heart disease in the world, the most common killers. And there is no better place to be on earth for emergency care and for premature deliveries. Say what you want about cost and access (which are factored into most WHO rankings for "quality") but we have (had) the best health care money can buy.

    Now to the actual point, according to your view (and frankly the cout-packing scheme era Supreme Court) there is no senario or hypothetical that escapes the all-encompasing reach of the commerce clause. So if I live in a cabin in the woods and never see a doctor in my life, I effect interstate commerce? Because I "might" use the health care system I effect interstate commerce? Does Bill Gates get forced to buy insurance from a private company that he could likely purchase outright? How about Warren Buffet, he already owns an insurance company, can he be jailed if he does not purchase the proscribed Federal Health Care Plan?

    I hope you are not attached to your children, after all their care effects interstate commerce and therefore, the Feds can regulate them away from you if necessary.

    It is a brave new world after all.
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    When the pressure on the system is so great (77 million baby boomers demanding Medicare within 20 years), politicians will HAVE to do it so the whole country doesn't go bankrupt paying for healthcare.

    Our current system is suicide, which is why most of Europe moved away from private insurance decades ago.

    No system is perfect, but something is wrong when a 6th of our economy (and growing) relies on people being sick. In most European countries, it's now just 10% of the economy.
    For all the talk of health care one factor regarding the cost is often ignored - the consumer. A large part of why people in the U.S. spend so much on heath care is because they want to. There is a strong motivation for staying alive. When people are sick the last thing the will want to hear is, "Sorry, it has been determined that further treatment has proven to be too costly for the slim chance of recovery it offers you." But people hear that in Europe, and now, it will be so in the U.S.
    Last edited by sir_mycroft; 03/23/2010 at 02:39 PM.
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The government would HAVE to meddle because, if insurance were open to all 50 states, people would naturally go to the cheapest--the state where insurance has the least regulation.
    And?

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    When people realize that they don't have insurance that cover anything much, everyone is going to demand that the federal government at least prescribe the minimum level of benefits.
    Why? Why wouldn't they simply choose a better plan that they deem worth the money they pay?

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Actually, even conservatives understand this and I've heard Republican politicians on TV actually support this level of government involvement.
    Good for them.

    It's exactly how Switzerland and the Netherlands do it--and quite successfully.[/QUOTE]

    Ok.

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    More healthcare doesn't mean better healthcare--as we see when we compare measures of quality in the US vs. the rest of the advanced world.

    Actually, in the US, because someone else is usually paying the cost (Medicare, private insurance), it's rather easy to say do more--because we wrongly equate more testing and procedures to better healthcare.
    So, what you are revealing here is that under these indirect payer systems (private or government), there are few barriers to doing more, which leads to higher costs. In other words--free market controls, based on some interaction between a paying patient and their doctor are NOT in effect, but rather short-circuited by these indirect payer schemes.

    KAM
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post

    How about Warren Buffet, he already owns an insurance company, can he be jailed if he does not purchase the proscribed Federal Health Care Plan?

    I hope you are not attached to your children, after all their care effects interstate commerce and therefore, the Feds can regulate them away from you if necessary.

    It is a brave new world after all.
    No one can get arrested for not buying health insurance. There is no "proscribed Federal Health Care Plan". And I can guarantee you Warren Buffet has Health insurance, as he is not an *****. And the bit about them taking my children away based upon the Commerce Clause would likely be too nutty even for Beck and Limbaugh to say.
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The same reason people aren't buying "better" insurance now---they can't afford it.
    Well, I've got problems with how insurance is set up for healthcare, but aside from that, if we had competition for insurance on broad scale it would IMPROVE this cost issue somewhat. That's not the primary driver of the cost problems as I see it however, but still a component.

    KAM
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by lawtalkinguy View Post
    The tax is not paid to a private company. Rather, you have a choice, buy insurance, or pay a tax to the federal government. No one has to pay for private insurance if they do not want to. However, those who do not buy private insurance, and therefore rely upon the public for catastrophic medical insurance, in the form of guaranteed emergency room access, are required to offset those costs by paying the federal government a tax. Such laws are perfectly constitutional, and have been so recognized by the Supreme Court since the 1930s. Even this reactionary right wing court would not strike down this law.
    I went back and read my post, and I don't believe I said the tax would go to a private company, the required premium goes to a private company. I agree with you, the tax does go to the government....the tax is required if you don't have health coverage. So.....you are correct....the government gives you a choice....either pay the insurance premium or pay the tax. You may disagree with my opinion, and ultimately the Supreme Court will determine by likely either a 5-4 or 4-5 vote, but it will remain my opinion. I post this link fairly regularly, but it is an interesting history on how Social Security got by the Supreme Court: Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions