Coffeehouse Thread

44 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Why Obamacare Was Ruled Unconstitutional

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    If individual states want to implement public health care systems they can go ahead and do that (and some already do).  But it's unconstitutional for the federal government to coerce people into buying insurance.  They were never granted the authority to do this.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    @CreamFilling512:  Let's just see what happens.  The same was said about Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. 

    Frankly, this could all be avoided by eliminating for-profit insurance and healthcare.

  • User profile image
    cbae

    , spivonious wrote

    I'll put in my two cents.

    I am a free-market libertarian. I believe the federal government should stay out of anything that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give them the power to do.

    HOWEVER, healthcare just doesn't work in the free market system. If I want an apple, I can shop around and buy the apple that gives me the best value. If I'm lying in a bed about to die if I don't have surgery, I really don't have the option. I would pay any price. Therefore, the only real solution to healthcare is a system like the UK has, where the costs are paid through taxes and everyone gets "free" care.

    Since that will never happen in the US, I think the only real solution here is to detach health insurance from employment and to allow interstate competition from insurance providers. A larger pool of people and increased competition will lower costs. Don't mandate coverage, but do keep health insurance premiums as untaxed. In essence, make it much closer to automobile insurance. If I choose to not get coverage and get in a big accident, then I'm stuck paying out of pocket. Make it the same with healthcare.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about healthcare not working in a free market system. However, I have doubts that allowing interstate coverage is the solution.

    http://bit.ly/b1sfdO

    I think the best solution given this country's unfounded fear of "socialized medicine" is to take the Medicaid approach and open up coverage up to everybody. The way Medicaid works in most states is that management of the program is contracted out to a private insurer. They have to competitively bid to win the contract, but they have monopoly power for X number of years. It's single payer at the state level, but it's not managed by the government. The government simply has oversight of the program. It would essentially be run day to day like a public utility company, but the entity that gets to run it is determined by free market competition. The program could be funded by corporate and individual income tax.

     

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    Sub Medical Price = Actual Price (employees, office, utilities) + Freeloader Expensive Emergency Services + Malpractice Insurrance.

    The total Media Price = Sub Medical Price * roughly 1.6 insurrance bargin ratio adjustments.

    Even if you don't have any insurrance, you are still gonna pay for all these. If you don't pay at all and have no house to be liquidated, you can enjoy the service for zero price. But, since we are typically middle class here, we will pay all that regardless.

    You think you have a choice? Guess again. They don't hand you a menu on each item cost before you use the service, this is not a restaurants that you can just leave if you realized the menu is too expensive. And there is no well-known franchise like McDonald that provide consistant pricing and service to poor patients. Even if they hand you a menu on service pricings, you simply don't have time to shop around.

    Whether it is unconstitutional or not, we never have a choice to begin with. I am either for/against the health care. I just wanted to point out that we don't have a choice to begin with.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    Obamacare also creates a moral hazard where it becomes cheaper and more advantageous for the individual to NOT enroll in a health insurance plan, pay the federal penalty, and then obtain coverage on the day they turn ill and require treatment.  And, of course, they can't be denied.  That's just completely broken.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , Cream​Filling512 wrote

    Obamacare also creates a moral hazard where it becomes cheaper and more advantageous for the individual to NOT enroll in a health insurance plan, pay the federal penalty, and then obtain coverage on the day they turn ill and require treatment.  And, of course, they can't be denied.  That's just completely broken.

    Ok, you got all libertarian when you thought you were being 'coerced' into buying health insurance and then you complain about the alternative.  Heaven forbid we just make health care another line item on our paychecks.

    What, exactly, do you have to offer as a solution? 

    Oh, wait, that's right, you offer nothing.

  • User profile image
    Cream​Filling512

    @ScanIAm:

    Because I'm way better at managing my money and paying for health care than the government is?  I have an employer-matched HSA plus a high-deductible insurance plan for the unexpected emergency.  I find most insurance plans to be far too risk averse and a extremely poor investment of my money. 

    Health care costs are high for a large number of reasons, such as World War 2-era wage controls, abuse of legal system (lack of tort reform), lack of transparency.  These issues should be addressed first (and they're not).  You think Democrats would ever take on tort reform?  They're in bed with trial lawyers.

    Central planned statist health plans are a very bad fit for the United States.  No one ever understands the scale of these things.  Obamacare, which has little to do with health care, transfers one sixth of the entire US economy to federal government beaucracies.  That's equivalent to the entire UK or France, or two Indias.  No one has ever attempted central planning at this level before, not even in the Soviet Union.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , magicalclick wrote

    @spivonious:it is free as long as you don't pay and you don't have any property to be liquidized. in USA of course . You do have a choice to not pay and they have to save a live.

    Only in the emergency room.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , Cream​Filling512 wrote

    If individual states want to implement public health care systems they can go ahead and do that (and some already do).  But it's unconstitutional for the federal government to coerce people into buying insurance.  They were never granted the authority to do this.

    Agreed, but if you go that route then you have to cut all sorts of other programs. Education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Federal Reserve, National Parks, Endowment for the Arts, FCC, FDA, FAA, FBI, CIA, NSA, the list goes on and on.

  • User profile image
    spivonious

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about healthcare not working in a free market system. However, I have doubts that allowing interstate coverage is the solution.

    http://bit.ly/b1sfdO 

    I would take that document with a grain of salt. Of course insurance companies don't like the idea of interstate competition - they'd lose a lot of money.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    , spivonious wrote

    *snip*

    Only in the emergency room.

    That's why 70% of patients in emergency room is not really in critical conditions. And did I emphisized emergency service is expensive, more than 10x typically?

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    , Cream​Filling512 wrote

    @ScanIAm:

    Because I'm way better at managing my money and paying for health care than the government is?  I have an employer-matched HSA plus a high-deductible insurance plan for the unexpected emergency.  I find most insurance plans to be far too risk averse and a extremely poor investment of my money. 

    Let's see how you feel when you are 50.  Or when you're working for minimum wage.  I know that it's fun to think that the world should revolve around you, your issues, and tailor itself to your environment, but a plan of this magnitude has to cover lots of people who don't fall into the creamfilling mold.

    Health care costs are high for a large number of reasons, such as World War 2-era wage controls, abuse of legal system (lack of tort reform), lack of transparency.  These issues should be addressed first (and they're not).  You think Democrats would ever take on tort reform?  They're in bed with trial lawyers.

    Health care costs are high because health care costs a lot of time, money and resources.  Period.  I don't know of any Democrat (with a capital D, no less) who likes frivolous lawsuits, but the concept of tort reform means different things.  Businesses would love to see lawsuit caps because it would alleviate some of the risk involved in breaking the rules.  Insurance companies (your folks, by the way) love the tort system because they can point to that when they continue to raise malpractice insurance rates. 

    I'll tell you what.  Let's eliminate all civil suits for malpractice and instead prosecute them criminally.  That means when a pharmaceutical kills someone, a CEO is taken out and shot.  If a doctor makes a mistake, he goes to jail.

    How serious are you, my creamy type filling person?

    Central planned statist health plans are a very bad fit for the United States.  No one ever understands the scale of these things.  Obamacare, which has little to do with health care, transfers one sixth of the entire US economy to federal government beaucracies.  That's equivalent to the entire UK or France, or two Indias.  No one has ever attempted central planning at this level before, not even in the Soviet Union.

    I disagree with your opinion and what you believe to be facts.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Ordinarily I stay out of these threads, but it's 3am and I'm procrastinating:

     

    , Cream​Filling512 wrote

    @ScanIAm:

    Because I'm way better at managing my money and paying for health care than the government is?  I have an employer-matched HSA plus a high-deductible insurance plan for the unexpected emergency.  I find most insurance plans to be far too risk averse and a extremely poor investment of my money.

     

    You are (or rather, you see yourself as that kind of person) but the rest of the country probably isn't. That's the point of "social" systems: people need protection from their own stupidity for the benefit of the state and all of us.

    "Thank you for helping us help you help us all" pretty much sums up how things should work.

    Now I can see why the idea of being legally mandated to procure insurance is unconstitutional (of course I'd like to remind everyone that the constitution itself is not perfect, and I'm not of the opinion that it's wise to found a country on the basis of a piece of paper in the first place). I don't know why the administration didn't just classify it as a federal tax and do a revolutionary takeover of the health insurance industry. Le sigh, a man can dream.

    Also, can we stop with the labelling and name-calling? "Obamacare" is just childish. You don't see me calling the 2nd Amendment as "NRA Erotic Literature" every time I discuss it, do you?

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    It's just like I never left this place. Lolz

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    @phreaks: But you have to admit, that "NRA Erotic Literature" is funny.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    , ScanIAm wrote

    @phreaks: But you have to admit, that "NRA Erotic Literature" is funny.

    (It helps if you read this in Duke Nukem's voice)

    Yeah babe, would you like to see the barrel of my gun? When you pull on the trigger out comes a bang!

    Oh yeah, I bet you wanna grab my grenades too. They go boom, ahh yeah. Oh, what's that? You'd like me to set up a defensive position in your foxhole?

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    , cbae wrote

    *snip*

    I wholeheartedly agree with you about healthcare not working in a free market system. However, I have doubts that allowing interstate coverage is the solution.

    http://bit.ly/b1sfdO

    I think the best solution given this country's unfounded fear of "socialized medicine" is to take the Medicaid approach and open up coverage up to everybody. The way Medicaid works in most states is that management of the program is contracted out to a private insurer. They have to competitively bid to win the contract, but they have monopoly power for X number of years. It's single payer at the state level, but it's not managed by the government. The government simply has oversight of the program. It would essentially be run day to day like a public utility company, but the entity that gets to run it is determined by free market competition. The program could be funded by corporate and individual income tax.

    How will you control costs?

    Long queues like in Canada? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/world/long-lines-mar-canada-s-low-cost-health-care.html

    Strict rationing like in the UK? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1263223/NHS-rationing-body-denies-15-life-saving-drugs-cancer-patients.html

    Controlling doctor pay and work hours like in France? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1776719.stm

    The way Medicare/Medicaid works even now is that its insustainable, adding more and more to our debt every year without a way to control costs. http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges/medicare-and-medicaid/ Unless we put restrictions on care, or doctors, or patients, or use other methods to control costs like they've done overseas it'll be even worse if its opened up to everybody.

    If you substitute a free market -oriented system for a public -oriented system, you're just trading problems.

    But there's no reason to have to choose between the two, in the first place its a false debate thats being created by politics. Currently in the US we have both a free market part to our health care, and a public part, its already a mixed public-private system. But both parts have problems with them that can be addressed, and addressing the problems in one part of the system will benefit the other.

    We can make sure Medicaid covers those who need it, allocate state funding for free clinics, this can help lower insurance costs by making sure people get preventative care. Increasing competition and doing things like tort reform for the market half of the system can lower costs also.

    The link you provided on interstate competition makes a lot of statements that really are vague an insubstantive. It says that insurance companies will choose their regulators, but saying this is a problem is assuming that states will badly regulate insurance companies, that bad regulations from other states will infect your state somehow, or that insurers won't try to make a profit in your state because they don't like your regulations. None of those assumptions make any sense at all.

    Also. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_savings_account

     

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    @W3bbo:

    Yeah, it's all pretty funny

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.