Contraception - a discussion

[Triton]

C'mon you know you want universal government run health care.

Your comparison of utility companies and private insurance companies is not valid at all.

The free market is not the reason for the rising cost of health care at all. People used to be able to afford to pay for their health care and did not need insurance to pay for what is now absurdly expensive simple doctors visit thanks to government overegulation placing greater burden and cost on medical practitioners and patients.

Why do you assume that institutions in NH would not accept payment from NY's public insurance? What would NH's government have to do with agreements between the private institutions of NH and the public health system of NY? Why do you assume NH would have poor health care and NY good health care? What happens when the government deems people to be not worth the cost of treatment? Is the government going to force obese people on diets as to not strain the system or limit their care? .

I can ask numerous hypothetical questions too.

One single minimum standard controlled by the government creates one single sub-standard system with too much power in the hands of the government. It restricts creativity and ingenuity in medicine. It prevents the best and brightest in medicine from achieving independence in medicine and adds massive bureaucracy with its insane red tape and increased taxpayer costs for a government that cannot even maintain the public infastructure. All while taking personal choice away from the individual.

So yes, its a terrible thing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The commerce clause, the 10th amendment, and universal health care would be a court battle that's for sure.

As for your comment

You are trying to make people who don't support government run health care appear to lack compassion. We already have a qausi socialized system. There is already enough regulation to allow for recourse for declining paid for coverage. I am of the opinion that free market forces will allow for greater ingenuity in medicine and lower costs through competition. Artificial monopolies don't work and they stagnate progress. More government involvement will generate more problems.



We simply disagree on what the government's role should be in health care.


In turn, what's wrong with letting an individual state such as New York have government run care while New Hampshire does not? With the residents of New Hampshire not having to pay for New Yorkers' health care.

my post is not advocating for a full government run system. what i am simply pointing out that government regulation can provide an avenue for change. which is what is happening here. there are many good things in the health care law which everyone agrees are good. things like making 80% of premium dollars be used on patient care, not being able to drop patients when they get sick, the removal of lifetime caps, kids being able to stay on their parents insurance until 26, mammograms at no additional costs, the elimination of pre-exisiting conditions. without government intervention then none of this would have happened.

the free market is not always the best solution. look at natural monopolies such as utilities providers. they have government regulated monopolies because it makes more sense logisitically and financially to have one say electricity provider instead of 20 in a given area. look at what the free market did to the financial markets between 2004 and 2008? the lack of regulation cause a huge financial collapse. i have never said the government should run everything or is the perfect solution to every problem. but..... government intervention and regulation can provide a positive avenue for change when the free market is not willing to do so.

health care costs have increased 10 fold since 1990, and the average family is getting squeezed out of the insurance market. all of this due to the free market. how much longer should we wait to see if the free market corrects itself? 10 more years? 20 more?

your notion of letting NY have state run health care but no NH opens a large amount of problems. what if someone from NY travels to NH and gets hurt, but NH will not accept the NY health insurance? so the patient has to be transported back to NY at the possibility of dying. if every state had their own standards of health care, each state would need to have an separate agreement with every other state to accept that states health insurance. if a state is not willing to do so, then you create problems amongst the states. you will have people who will not travel outside their state for fear of incurring costs associated with this. you will also have 50 different form of health care. what if NY had good health care, and NH didnt have good health care, would you allow the residents of NH to cross state lines and improve their health care? would NH be allow to restrict this through law? would people being to flee states due to lack of access to health care?

if you create one single minimum standard that has met, you provide uniformity across the industry. this does not stop providers from exceeding that standard, but it provides a framework with which to start. is this such a terrible thing?

"But what if"...The dumbest question on planet Earth.
It's always "but what if"...
First, your premise is an impossibility. One's insurance is good in one state, it is good in all others. That comes from "Full faith and credit"....Search the entire LII site.
You are blowing this out of proportion.

 

[Syphon]

Well, if you were a a private insurance company you should have the choice to offer contraception coverage or not. Not be required to do so or not by the government.



As far as premiums paying for other people's claims, is it really relevant? I still have the choice to pay for insurance or not.

Another issue is the federal government is not even authorized to provide health care. If we want to do this the constitution must be amended (not that the Federal government even follows the constitution anyway) However, if the people of the individual states want to have their state government run their health care that's completely fine.

Just don't expect the people of the other states that don't want it to pay for it.

the fed is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. since when you have health insurance is follows you across state lines, this can be interpreted as interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. when the case reaches the supreme court, this is ultimately what the decision will hinge upon.

i posted the below earlier.... can you comment:

"i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this."

WHo gave the federal government the right to 'regulate insurance commerce'?....Answer..A misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
First, health insurance is not available across state lines. Therefore the federal government is acting outside it's Constitutional authority. Exactly the reason why Congress felt justified to pass Obamacare. Since it was essentially illegal for the law to be passed as a tax( which it is), Congress had to find another way to ram this down our throats.
Anyway. This is much ado about nothing. Fake outrage from the left is all we are hearing. And by the end of next week, this will be buried in the back of the "B" section of the local paper.
Ms. Fluke will have had her tour through all the liberal talk shows. The President will have milked this for every political drop he could get out of it. Limbaugh will replace those pussy assed sponsors that turned tail and ran.
This story is SHIT.

actually your health insurance does follow you across state lines right now. hence that makes it interstate commerce.

 

[Syphon]

The commerce clause, the 10th amendment, and universal health care would be a court battle that's for sure.

As for your comment

You are trying to make people who don't support government run health care appear to lack compassion. We already have a qausi socialized system. There is already enough regulation to allow for recourse for declining paid for coverage. I am of the opinion that free market forces will allow for greater ingenuity in medicine and lower costs through competition. Artificial monopolies don't work and they stagnate progress. More government involvement will generate more problems.



We simply disagree on what the government's role should be in health care.


In turn, what's wrong with letting an individual state such as New York have government run care while New Hampshire does not? With the residents of New Hampshire not having to pay for New Yorkers' health care.

my post is not advocating for a full government run system. what i am simply pointing out that government regulation can provide an avenue for change. which is what is happening here. there are many good things in the health care law which everyone agrees are good. things like making 80% of premium dollars be used on patient care, not being able to drop patients when they get sick, the removal of lifetime caps, kids being able to stay on their parents insurance until 26, mammograms at no additional costs, the elimination of pre-exisiting conditions. without government intervention then none of this would have happened.

the free market is not always the best solution. look at natural monopolies such as utilities providers. they have government regulated monopolies because it makes more sense logisitically and financially to have one say electricity provider instead of 20 in a given area. look at what the free market did to the financial markets between 2004 and 2008? the lack of regulation cause a huge financial collapse. i have never said the government should run everything or is the perfect solution to every problem. but..... government intervention and regulation can provide a positive avenue for change when the free market is not willing to do so.

health care costs have increased 10 fold since 1990, and the average family is getting squeezed out of the insurance market. all of this due to the free market. how much longer should we wait to see if the free market corrects itself? 10 more years? 20 more?

your notion of letting NY have state run health care but no NH opens a large amount of problems. what if someone from NY travels to NH and gets hurt, but NH will not accept the NY health insurance? so the patient has to be transported back to NY at the possibility of dying. if every state had their own standards of health care, each state would need to have an separate agreement with every other state to accept that states health insurance. if a state is not willing to do so, then you create problems amongst the states. you will have people who will not travel outside their state for fear of incurring costs associated with this. you will also have 50 different form of health care. what if NY had good health care, and NH didnt have good health care, would you allow the residents of NH to cross state lines and improve their health care? would NH be allow to restrict this through law? would people being to flee states due to lack of access to health care?

if you create one single minimum standard that has met, you provide uniformity across the industry. this does not stop providers from exceeding that standard, but it provides a framework with which to start. is this such a terrible thing?

"But what if"...The dumbest question on planet Earth.
It's always "but what if"...
First, your premise is an impossibility. One's insurance is good in one state, it is good in all others. That comes from "Full faith and credit"....Search the entire LII site.
You are blowing this out of proportion.

the what ifs are how things are proposed and passed or not.

what if Iran gets a nuke is part of the discussion in Washington right now. should they ignore that what if? is that the dumbest question on earth to ask?

 

[Unkotare]

People in rural areas can have as many children as they want. .

No, not "as many as they want." It is more complicated than that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

the fed is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. since when you have health insurance is follows you across state lines, this can be interpreted as interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution. when the case reaches the supreme court, this is ultimately what the decision will hinge upon.

i posted the below earlier.... can you comment:

"i think when the free market fails to provide an adequate service such a basic health care at an affordable price government intervention can force change. since the majority of people on this thread have basically decided that access to affordable health care is not a basic right and people do not deserve it, this rules out universal health (unlike most of the rest of the industrialized world). this being said, government regulation of this can provide a framework to make it accessible by more people than it currently it.
government is not always the solution, but neither is the free market. just use the financial markets betwen 2004 and 2008 as an example of this."

WHo gave the federal government the right to 'regulate insurance commerce'?....Answer..A misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
First, health insurance is not available across state lines. Therefore the federal government is acting outside it's Constitutional authority. Exactly the reason why Congress felt justified to pass Obamacare. Since it was essentially illegal for the law to be passed as a tax( which it is), Congress had to find another way to ram this down our throats.
Anyway. This is much ado about nothing. Fake outrage from the left is all we are hearing. And by the end of next week, this will be buried in the back of the "B" section of the local paper.
Ms. Fluke will have had her tour through all the liberal talk shows. The President will have milked this for every political drop he could get out of it. Limbaugh will replace those pussy assed sponsors that turned tail and ran.
This story is SHIT.

actually your health insurance does follow you across state lines right now. hence that makes it interstate commerce.

Yes, but the plan is then administered by an in-state office in the new state of residence.
If what you imply is true, then Americans SHOULD be able to buy coverage across state lines. We cannot. The only way to do that now( in 2014) is through the federal government.
So while the government squashes competition between insurance carriers across state lines, it sets itself in the position of a convenient monopoly.
The goal is to stop ALL private health insurance. Obamacare will do just that.

 

[Syphon]

WHo gave the federal government the right to 'regulate insurance commerce'?....Answer..A misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.
First, health insurance is not available across state lines. Therefore the federal government is acting outside it's Constitutional authority. Exactly the reason why Congress felt justified to pass Obamacare. Since it was essentially illegal for the law to be passed as a tax( which it is), Congress had to find another way to ram this down our throats.
Anyway. This is much ado about nothing. Fake outrage from the left is all we are hearing. And by the end of next week, this will be buried in the back of the "B" section of the local paper.
Ms. Fluke will have had her tour through all the liberal talk shows. The President will have milked this for every political drop he could get out of it. Limbaugh will replace those pussy assed sponsors that turned tail and ran.
This story is SHIT.

actually your health insurance does follow you across state lines right now. hence that makes it interstate commerce.

Yes, but the plan is then administered by an in-state office in the new state of residence.
If what you imply is true, then Americans SHOULD be able to buy coverage across state lines. We cannot. The only way to do that now( in 2014) is through the federal government.
So while the government squashes competition between insurance carriers across state lines, it sets itself in the position of a convenient monopoly.
The goal is to stop ALL private health insurance. Obamacare will do just that.

there is difference right now between purchasing health care across state line and having it follow you across states line.

The health care law though, does provide a provision to purchase health care across state lines from private insurers.

the goals is not to stop private health care, if that was the goal then the law would have been single payer and government run. the way the law is written is that you use the private health care network. the government will set up exchanges which will allow groups of individuals to purchase through, but outside of medicare and medicaid, there is no new government health care.