Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[HuskerNMO]

In reality this isn't really a debate on healthcare, it's a debate on the powers of government and the impact of our capitalist economy.

 

Many people say they want "affordable" heathcare, but this isn't true. They want cheap healthcare for the poor, subsidized by the government, or ultimately the larger earning taxpayer. Congrats on making it, now I need you to pay for the "less fortunate" that can't afford healthcare.

 

Others say healthcare costs are out of control, here's a novel thought, healthcare companies want to make money, many are non profit and are sneaking by on 2-3% margins. Yes there are some others that are for profit and make 6-7%, but those are few and far between. The government payouts for services are driving up the cost of insurance and out of pocket costs for healthcare. Regulation on the industry forces an archaeic model of med schools that impose significant barriers to those wishing to enter the market.

 

If you want a capitalist system, then healthcare is going to cost a lot and quality will vary significantly. If you want a single payer model it will eliminate competition and drive even further the consolodation of the market into mega corporations that run hospitals trying to make more money. Hundreds of locally run hospitals will be forced to either shutter their doors or align with larger companies the way things are going. But this isn't limited to just healthcare, it is hitting almost every industry in America.

 

There is a saying in business, you can have it fast, cheap or good, and you can pick 2 of the 3, but cannot get all 3. People may desire all 3, but it just isn't possible.

[knapplc]

In reality this isn't really a debate on healthcare, it's a debate on the powers of government and the impact of our capitalist economy.

 

Many people say they want "affordable" heathcare, but this isn't true. They want cheap healthcare for the poor, subsidized by the government, or ultimately the larger earning taxpayer. Congrats on making it, now I need you to pay for the "less fortunate" that can't afford healthcare.

 

Others say healthcare costs are out of control, here's a novel thought, healthcare companies want to make money, many are non profit and are sneaking by on 2-3% margins. Yes there are some others that are for profit and make 6-7%, but those are few and far between. The government payouts for services are driving up the cost of insurance and out of pocket costs for healthcare. Regulation on the industry forces an archaeic model of med schools that impose significant barriers to those wishing to enter the market.

 

If you want a capitalist system, then healthcare is going to cost a lot and quality will vary significantly. If you want a single payer model it will eliminate competition and drive even further the consolodation of the market into mega corporations that run hospitals trying to make more money. Hundreds of locally run hospitals will be forced to either shutter their doors or align with larger companies the way things are going. But this isn't limited to just healthcare, it is hitting almost every industry in America.

 

There is a saying in business, you can have it fast, cheap or good, and you can pick 2 of the 3, but cannot get all 3. People may desire all 3, but it just isn't possible.

 

Absolutely untrue. I am your average wage-earner, middle-class non-poor guy, and I just want affordable healthcare. Like every other industrialized nation has. Like every nation that we perceive as our peers have. Like every human should have, whether they're rich or poor, middle class or legal non-resident.

 

Deregulation doesn't drive down costs, it does the opposite - without regulation, nothing is to stop healthcare companies from forming monopolies by gobbling up smaller providers and, once they've done so, creating whatever price they want. Deregulation doesn't create some price-competition utopia, that's a line of BS the companies and their GOP cronies are feeding to keep the cash flowing from your pocket to theirs.

 

Your doomsday scenario in your fourth paragraph is belied by the healthcare models in the rest of the modern world. Healthcare isn't perfect everywhere else - it's just affordable everywhere else. Everywhere but here.

 

And no sane person wants "fast, cheap" healthcare. They want good healthcare. Period. That's not asking too much.

[HSKR]

In reality this isn't really a debate on healthcare, it's a debate on the powers of government and the impact of our capitalist economy.

 

Many people say they want "affordable" heathcare, but this isn't true. They want cheap healthcare for the poor, subsidized by the government, or ultimately the larger earning taxpayer. Congrats on making it, now I need you to pay for the "less fortunate" that can't afford healthcare.

 

Others say healthcare costs are out of control, here's a novel thought, healthcare companies want to make money, many are non profit and are sneaking by on 2-3% margins. Yes there are some others that are for profit and make 6-7%, but those are few and far between. The government payouts for services are driving up the cost of insurance and out of pocket costs for healthcare. Regulation on the industry forces an archaeic model of med schools that impose significant barriers to those wishing to enter the market.

 

If you want a capitalist system, then healthcare is going to cost a lot and quality will vary significantly. If you want a single payer model it will eliminate competition and drive even further the consolodation of the market into mega corporations that run hospitals trying to make more money. Hundreds of locally run hospitals will be forced to either shutter their doors or align with larger companies the way things are going. But this isn't limited to just healthcare, it is hitting almost every industry in America.

 

There is a saying in business, you can have it fast, cheap or good, and you can pick 2 of the 3, but cannot get all 3. People may desire all 3, but it just isn't possible.

 

Absolutely untrue. I am your average wage-earner, middle-class non-poor guy, and I just want affordable healthcare. Like every other industrialized nation has. Like every nation that we perceive as our peers have. Like every human should have, whether they're rich or poor, middle class or legal non-resident.

 

Deregulation doesn't drive down costs, it does the opposite - without regulation, nothing is to stop healthcare companies from forming monopolies by gobbling up smaller providers and, once they've done so, creating whatever price they want. Deregulation doesn't create some price-competition utopia, that's a line of BS the companies and their GOP cronies are feeding to keep the cash flowing from your pocket to theirs.

 

Your doomsday scenario in your fourth paragraph is belied by the healthcare models in the rest of the modern world. Healthcare isn't perfect everywhere else - it's just affordable everywhere else. Everywhere but here.

 

And no sane person wants "fast, cheap" healthcare. They want good healthcare. Period. That's not asking too much.

 

 

Uh, if I have a life threatening condition that requires surgery or some other form of treatment asap, yea I want it fast. Maybe you would be fine to wait six months for a triple bypass, but I'd rather have it tomorrow. I must be insane.

[knapplc]

Uh, if I have a life threatening condition that requires surgery or some other form of treatment asap, yea I want it fast. Maybe you would be fine to wait six months for a triple bypass, but I'd rather have it tomorrow. I must be insane.

 

Yes, because clearly what I meant was NOT a reference to poor healthcare, but actually I was implying that I'd like to wait six months for emergency surgery. I'm glad we're all on the same page now.

[Mavric]

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the argument for the mandate’s constitutionality is very simple. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate insurance, and so to mandate that insurers cover people with preexisting medical conditions. (The brief does not dispute this.) Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it may choose any convenient means to carry out this end. The mandate is clearly helpful, and may even be absolutely necessary, to Congress’s purpose. Therefore it is constitutional. Full stop.

http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html

 

This is somewhat of a logical leap. It takes a pretty liberal (can't decided if the pun is intended or not) interpretation of the word "necessary" for this to be true. It is not "necessary" for the mandate to be in place for Congress to pass a law stating that insurers must cover people with pre-existing conditions. They could do that part as a stand-alone law. It's only necessary to have the mandate for everyone to buy insurance for the first part to even have a chance to be financially solvent.

 

If Congress passed a law forcing coverage for pre-existing conditions, it would make health care insurance costs go up even higher which would increase a bunch of other problems but the mandate is only necessary in a financial sense, not a legal one. You would then have the same arguement over what is allowed under the Necessary and Proper Clause as you currently have over the Commerce Clause.

I think the argument is that it is necessary for viability.

Then why is it not "necessary" for any other program to be viable, just health care coverage? The fiscal insolvency of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. don't seem to have the same people arguing that costs must be controlled to keep them viable.

[krill]

Then why is it not "necessary" for any other program to be viable, just health care coverage? The fiscal insolvency of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. don't seem to have the same people arguing that costs must be controlled to keep them viable.

 

Because in this instance there are three parties that came to an agreement based on the inclusion the individual mandate.

 

The government wanted to expand coverage, alter regulation of insurance (issuance, caps, etc.), and lower cost in part by reducing reimbursement rates.

Insurers agreed because the individual mandate will expand their risk pool.

Health care providers agreed because the individual mandate will reduce losses incurred from treating those will no ability pay (i.e. the uninsured).

 

If the individual mandate is removed from health care reform, the whole thing necessarily falls apart; all the good aspects that enjoy wide bipartisan support go away. I understand that many of the opponents that find the mandate particularly egregious are standing on a principle of the scope of government, but essentially, it seems insane to me that their argument boils down to wanting to protect the theoretical person who has the ability to obtain health insurance but doesn't want to. Also, it is conveniently ignored that this theoretical person is suddenly in the market for health care the moment they have a health emergency, which quickly becomes the financial burden of the insured in the per-reform system.

[carlfense]

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the argument for the mandate’s constitutionality is very simple. Congress has the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate insurance, and so to mandate that insurers cover people with preexisting medical conditions. (The brief does not dispute this.) Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it may choose any convenient means to carry out this end. The mandate is clearly helpful, and may even be absolutely necessary, to Congress’s purpose. Therefore it is constitutional. Full stop.

http://balkin.blogsp...ul-clement.html

 

This is somewhat of a logical leap. It takes a pretty liberal (can't decided if the pun is intended or not) interpretation of the word "necessary" for this to be true. It is not "necessary" for the mandate to be in place for Congress to pass a law stating that insurers must cover people with pre-existing conditions. They could do that part as a stand-alone law. It's only necessary to have the mandate for everyone to buy insurance for the first part to even have a chance to be financially solvent.

 

If Congress passed a law forcing coverage for pre-existing conditions, it would make health care insurance costs go up even higher which would increase a bunch of other problems but the mandate is only necessary in a financial sense, not a legal one. You would then have the same arguement over what is allowed under the Necessary and Proper Clause as you currently have over the Commerce Clause.

I think the argument is that it is necessary for viability.

Then why is it not "necessary" for any other program to be viable, just health care coverage? The fiscal insolvency of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. don't seem to have the same people arguing that costs must be controlled to keep them viable.

Krill gave a good summary above. Basically it's because there is a third party payer for the ACA after the GOP absolutely rejected a single payer system. The programs that you listed aren't the best examples because those are government provided.

 

What I find interesting is that no one argues that the government can require me to pay X numbers of dollars in taxes and in return provides me X dollars of health care. However, if the government were to cut itself out of the equation and say pay those same X dollars directly to a provider/insurer . . . all hell breaks loose. Interesting stuff. Financially speaking, those two simplified examples are identical.

[johnnyrodgers20]

Banning salt in NYC was not done by right wingers, forcing Cos. to shrink fries sizes is not done by right wingers. While both fringes are whacko, the lefties try to micro manage your life for your own good. I think that is the point!!

How about requiring the insertion of wands into vaginas? Nah. That's not nearly as invasive as shrinking the size of fries, right?

 

 

That sentence just made my point Carl, thank you!! I said micro managing, obviously there are the usual debate issues but they are big issues both sides feel they are right about. Abortion, Marriage, defense, the usual. I knew you would choose to pick something that isn't the point, we are talking about the minutia that the left seems happy to try to control, very trivial things, not something like that.

You have a very strange way of looking at things.

 

 

No, what is strange is the left looking over my shoulder and determining if I have been using too much salt. Forcing a restaurant to change their menu because they view it to be hazardous to my health. That is what is really strange.

[carlfense]

No, what is strange is the left looking over my shoulder and determining if I have been using too much salt. Forcing a restaurant to change their menu because they view it to be hazardous to my health. That is what is really strange.

What's strange is that you sound concerned about salt regulations . . . but not about government ordered rape.

 

Put another way, you sound concerned about the left looking over your shoulder but unconcerned about the right ramming instruments into your orifices.

 

Why is that? Tribalism?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Jeez...this is like one big d*** measuring contest.

 

Both radical ends are wrong and both radical ends do an equal amount of trying to force other people to go along with their views.

 

The safest place is always towards the middle.

 

As for Obamacare, I don't know, I'm still caught up in it...health care is something that I quite frankly have no idea about the legalities and terms etc...

 

Does everyone have a right to health care? I think they do. The question of how everyone has a right to healthcare? I think it should be on their own budget...but then, more often than not, the ones who have health care don't find themselves in as many emergencies as those who want it, but can't afford it. It's a sticky situation, but I think if you lean towards the "more humane" side of the argument, health care should be universal; if you lean towards the "better for business" side of the argument, then health care should remain the way it is now.

[johnnyrodgers20]

No, what is strange is the left looking over my shoulder and determining if I have been using too much salt. Forcing a restaurant to change their menu because they view it to be hazardous to my health. That is what is really strange.

What's strange is that you sound concerned about salt regulations . . . but not about government ordered rape.

 

Put another way, you sound concerned about the left looking over your shoulder but unconcerned about the right ramming instruments into your orifices.

 

Why is that? Tribalism?

 

 

You really are being silly now!!! I already said those serious issues are debatable and both sides will fall along party lines. I said abortion and those issues are very improtant, I laugh at the left when they go after trivial things like the amount of salt I use. But maybe it is important to you how much salt I use? Maybe you need to find a release for all your tension? And why don't you elaborate on how the right is in favor of govt. ordered rape? Sounds like you are trying to get the mob revved up to me. I just find it funny that we are going to imprison people for buying an order of extra large fries but the left wants to free drug users. Never mind, knowing what I know about the left that sounds about right.

[carlfense]

I just find it funny that we are going to imprison people for buying an order of extra large fries but the left wants to free drug users.

What?

[CornHOLIO]

If I get sick, the Hospital or a Dr is the LAST place I want to go for help. It's a guy thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Can we go to a massage therapist instead?

[HuskerNMO]

In reality this isn't really a debate on healthcare, it's a debate on the powers of government and the impact of our capitalist economy.

 

Many people say they want "affordable" heathcare, but this isn't true. They want cheap healthcare for the poor, subsidized by the government, or ultimately the larger earning taxpayer. Congrats on making it, now I need you to pay for the "less fortunate" that can't afford healthcare.

 

Others say healthcare costs are out of control, here's a novel thought, healthcare companies want to make money, many are non profit and are sneaking by on 2-3% margins. Yes there are some others that are for profit and make 6-7%, but those are few and far between. The government payouts for services are driving up the cost of insurance and out of pocket costs for healthcare. Regulation on the industry forces an archaeic model of med schools that impose significant barriers to those wishing to enter the market.

 

If you want a capitalist system, then healthcare is going to cost a lot and quality will vary significantly. If you want a single payer model it will eliminate competition and drive even further the consolodation of the market into mega corporations that run hospitals trying to make more money. Hundreds of locally run hospitals will be forced to either shutter their doors or align with larger companies the way things are going. But this isn't limited to just healthcare, it is hitting almost every industry in America.

 

There is a saying in business, you can have it fast, cheap or good, and you can pick 2 of the 3, but cannot get all 3. People may desire all 3, but it just isn't possible.

 

Absolutely untrue. I am your average wage-earner, middle-class non-poor guy, and I just want affordable healthcare. Like every other industrialized nation has. Like every nation that we perceive as our peers have. Like every human should have, whether they're rich or poor, middle class or legal non-resident.

 

Deregulation doesn't drive down costs, it does the opposite - without regulation, nothing is to stop healthcare companies from forming monopolies by gobbling up smaller providers and, once they've done so, creating whatever price they want. Deregulation doesn't create some price-competition utopia, that's a line of BS the companies and their GOP cronies are feeding to keep the cash flowing from your pocket to theirs.

 

Your doomsday scenario in your fourth paragraph is belied by the healthcare models in the rest of the modern world. Healthcare isn't perfect everywhere else - it's just affordable everywhere else. Everywhere but here.

 

And no sane person wants "fast, cheap" healthcare. They want good healthcare. Period. That's not asking too much.

 

The thing you miss about the regulation is the cost of regulation, tell a small rural hospital that they have to abandon their paper based methods, buy and implement electronic medical records, develop systems to maintain HIPAA compliance, have to convert to a new coding standard over the next few years which will require system changes, staff training and changes and they simply can't afford the changes so they sell out to a larger company. I work for a regional health system and we just finished integration with one such hospital, are looking at a second, and have 3 others within an hour of us that have sold out to our competitor in town in the past 2 years.

 

The changes in regulation on healthcare aren't creating competition other than for the large companies to swallow the smaller ones.

 

And when you talk about the other industrialized countries and their affordable health care, go compare the income tax rates of said countries to the US, most are between 35-50% compared to the US which is between 28-30 depending on where you look. I'm sure if I gave an extra 5% of my income along with everyone else we could funnel it to healthcare and create the appearance that it has become affordable, but yet I now take home less so I can't afford the stuff that I really need to spend my money on. You can call it "affordable" all you want, but the truth is you want subsidized healthcare.

[HuskerNMO]

No, what is strange is the left looking over my shoulder and determining if I have been using too much salt. Forcing a restaurant to change their menu because they view it to be hazardous to my health. That is what is really strange.

What's strange is that you sound concerned about salt regulations . . . but not about government ordered rape.

 

Put another way, you sound concerned about the left looking over your shoulder but unconcerned about the right ramming instruments into your orifices.

 

Why is that? Tribalism?

 

I will be sure and inform rape victims that I meet that the government telling me to buy something is equal to their physical assault. Great choice of words.