Thread: Individual mandate is unconstitutional...

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I see where you're coming from, but healthcare is a tricky situation with regard to access.

With healthcare, the issue is that people will end up in the ER, receive services, and not pay up. That cost is pushed onto the rest of us.

Poppycock. Firms look to improve access to paying customers. The health care industry is no different. For those who cannot pay, there are charity free clinics, etc.

The so-called public option is a tricky use of language to legalize what you say, the cost being pushed onto the rest of us. They only difference, besides the moral aspect of freedom, is the public option will dramatically increase demand.

Are you familiar with the consequences of increasing demand as it pertains to The Law of Supply and Demand?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Poppycock. Firms look to improve access to paying customers. The health care industry is no different. For those who cannot pay, there are charity free clinics, etc.

The so-called public option is a tricky use of language to legalize what you say, the cost being pushed onto the rest of us. They only difference, besides the moral aspect of freedom, is the public option will dramatically increase demand.

Are you familiar with the consequences of increasing demand as it pertains to The Law of Supply and Demand?

Of course I'm familiar with that law. I have a B.A. in Economics.

That being said, what I said wasn't poppycock. A large part of why our healthcare is as expensive as it is stems directly from non-paying customers. No amount of charity can cover all that.

I know you would like to believe that charity can cover this, but it's no more logical to believe the market can fix everything than it is to believe the government can. Reality requires a balance of influence.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Of course I'm familiar with that law. I have a B.A. in Economics.

That being said, what I said wasn't poppycock. A large part of why our healthcare is as expensive as it is stems directly from non-paying customers. No amount of charity can cover all that.

I know you would like to believe that charity can cover this, but it's no more logical to believe the market can fix everything than it is to believe the government can. Reality requires a balance of influence.

Actually, its more malevolent than that. Innocent malevolence, but never the less, malevolence.

Think of it this way.

All of us, health professionals included, want their jobs to go well, the best of everything, and a reasonable standard of living. So, of course, they are always pushing for the latest and best toys from pills to instruments to machines. Given the choice, they will drive up costs by wanting the best for their patients. Certainly nothing evil or despicable in that environment, right? (Especially if I am the one needing treatment!)

Then of course we have the insurance companies. They want the premiums to cover the costs from the health care folks, plus the costs of administering, sales, etc. Nothing wrong there either. On top of that, they want a little kicker for the owners. All is well in the world, everyone is happy.

Then, here's the tricky part, where unintended malevolence creeps in. Its the old cost-plus problem. The only way that the health insurance company can get increases in profits is if the amounts paid out to the health industry go up. Guess what? The incentive suddenly becomes finding ways to accept claims which will increase the cost base for next year's premium adjustment. The target becomes finding the balance point of the highest premium increase that will be accepted by the employers without dumping health care as a payroll benefit. It would appear to me that the insurance companies have successfully turned the task in to an art.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

Actually, its more malevolent than that. Innocent malevolence, but never the less, malevolence.

Think of it this way.

All of us, health professionals included, want their jobs to go well, the best of everything, and a reasonable standard of living. So, of course, they are always pushing for the latest and best toys from pills to instruments to machines. Given the choice, they will drive up costs by wanting the best for their patients. Certainly nothing evil or despicable in that environment, right? (Especially if I am the one needing treatment!)

Then of course we have the insurance companies. They want the premiums to cover the costs from the health care folks, plus the costs of administering, sales, etc. Nothing wrong there either. On top of that, they want a little kicker for the owners. All is well in the world, everyone is happy.

Then, here's the tricky part, where unintended malevolence creeps in. Its the old cost-plus problem. The only way that the health insurance company can get increases in profits is if the amounts paid out to the health industry go up. Guess what? The incentive suddenly becomes finding ways to accept claims which will increase the cost base for next year's premium adjustment. The target becomes finding the balance point of the highest premium increase that will be accepted by the employers without dumping health care as a payroll benefit. It would appear to me that the insurance companies have successfully turned the task in to an art.

Good points... This is the central problem with a for-profit healthcare industry (and more specifically, for-profit insurance).

The goal is less to keep people healthy and more to keep them paying.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Poppycock. Firms look to improve access to paying customers. The health care industry is no different. For those who cannot pay, there are charity free clinics, etc.

ever been to an intern developement medical traing facility(qwuack-shop)? just like going on sick-call in the Army, good luck getting what you needed when you walked in.

The so-called public option is a tricky use of language to legalize what you say, the cost being pushed onto the rest of us. They only difference, besides the moral aspect of freedom, is the public option will dramatically increase demand.

Morally? Then you shoud have no problem helping those in need.

Are you familiar with the consequences of increasing demand as it pertains to The Law of Supply and Demand?

yes, even if it is really price gouging when demand goes up inna free market that has no control.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

...They only difference, besides the moral aspect of freedom, is the public option will dramatically increase demand.

Are you familiar with the consequences of increasing demand as it pertains to The Law of Supply and Demand?

The whole point is that demand will not increase. In fact, over time it will decrease.

What you really mean is that finally recognizing the real level of demand would occur, and that you are against that. It is is so much easier/cheaper to ignore the real demand and just mark that off to the greedy wishes of the poor.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

The whole point is that demand will not increase. In fact, over time it will decrease.

What you really mean is that finally recognizing the real level of demand would occur, and that you are against that. It is is so much easier/cheaper to ignore the real demand and just mark that off to the greedy wishes of the poor.

The problem is, without some kind of limiting factor the demand for health care is infinite. If you remove ability to pay as a limiting factor, demand will skyrocket. To avoid further accelerating price inflation it will be necessary to limit it in some other way - either through direct price controls, or something akin to the apocryphal "death panels".

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

The whole point is that demand will not increase. In fact, over time it will decrease.

You failed the proper application of The Law of Supply and Demand to this.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You failed the proper application of The Law of Supply and Demand to this.

How so? There is pent up demand, but the demand exists and won't change much. I don't see as the supply will change dramatically either.

So, I totally miss your point.

Unless you are saying there is something virtuous for America by stomping on the poor?

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

States might be sovereign to a degree, but it often takes federal intervention to right many wrongs by states (like ending segregation, for example).

That's because the Bill of Rights applies to the states. However, limits on Congressional power only apply to Congress. State legislatures have their own limits, sometimes looser, sometimes more stringent.

Congress simply does not have the power to compel us to buy health insurance. Or at the very least, this is a new assertion of their commerce power that the courts must approve.

Originally Posted by adaher

That's because the Bill of Rights applies to the states. However, limits on Congressional power only apply to Congress. State legislatures have their own limits, sometimes looser, sometimes more stringent.

Congress simply does not have the power to compel us to buy health insurance. Or at the very least, this is a new assertion of their commerce power that the courts must approve.

I see and read this comment with some regularity. Here is my question: If the mandate to buy insurance were to go away, is the rest of the Health Care Act close enough to a starting position for you to be in favor of it?

Having a public option would have been infinitely better than what Obamacare became...

So true. Somehow we went from having a realistic healthcare option in this country, to being forced to pay corporations. American politics as usual.

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

I see and read this comment with some regularity. Here is my question: If the mandate to buy insurance were to go away, is the rest of the Health Care Act close enough to a starting position for you to be in favor of it?

Some of it is, some of it isn't. They also need to ditch the insurance mandates making certain cheap, routine things free. That adds to the cost of insurance and contributes to overutilization of health care resources. Let consumers decide when to consume health care. Insurance should cover things consumers can't cover themselves.

The subsidies are also unnecessary. Rather than pay people to buy private insurance, people who can't afford it should be on Medicaid. Yes, it's more "socialist", but it's also cheaper.

So cut Medicare, plug the money into Medicaid, and you've covered 99% of the people who want coverage.