Individual mandate in trouble?

[Polk]

I think there is a social value in not saying "you're poor and therefore your live is meaningless". Trading in human blood is something I find highly unethical.

Agreed. I also think there is a pathology in this country that presumes the way to address such moral yearnings is to order other people to do what we're too lazy to do ourselves. And that's what EMTALA does. It's what PPACA is all about.

To put it another way, if we think government should ensure that everyone has health care, then we should raise the funds legitimately, via taxation, and provide them with health care. I think it's wrong to simply turn to arbitrary mandates and demand that other people do things against their will to spare us from higher taxes.

We are actually in agreement on an extent, in that it would be better to tax and then direct address problems, instead of using regulations as a roundabout way to achieve the same end.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think there is a social value in not saying "you're poor and therefore your live is meaningless". Trading in human blood is something I find highly unethical.

Agreed. I also think there is a pathology in this country that presumes the way to address such moral yearnings is to order other people to do what we're too lazy to do ourselves. And that's what EMTALA does. It's what PPACA is all about.

To put it another way, if we think government should ensure that everyone has health care, then we should raise the funds legitimately, via taxation, and provide them with health care. I think it's wrong to simply turn to arbitrary mandates and demand that other people do things against their will to spare us from higher taxes.

We are actually in agreement on an extent, in that it would be better to tax and then direct address problems, instead of using regulations as a roundabout way to achieve the same end.

Such huge tax increases would never pass Congress. Which is why they didnt do that. And really the crux of Obamacare, which introduced a backdoor "tax" in the form of a mandate.

 

[Conservative]

He can't.

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Actually, it wouldn't. Take a few minutes and research where your credit cards are all based out of... I guarantee you that you'll find out they're all based out of two states, Utah and Delaware.

Then research WHY.

Once you're done you'll realize that allowing folks to purchase across state lines would open up a Pandora's box unlike anything you've ever seen. It's a good thing you can't purchase insurance across state lines. Plus, allowing purchase across state lines undercuts the power of the individual States, something I am not in favor of.

Now, if it does happen that the Feds and the States allow purchase across State lines then insurance will constitute interstate commerce and the mandate is back in play.

Insurance Companies Should Be Allowed to Sell Policies Across State Lines - WSJ.com

Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis who has written extensively on this subject, notes that insurance companies operating nationally would compete nationally. The reason a Kentucky plan written for an individual from New Jersey would save the New Jerseyan money is that New Jersey is highly regulated, with costly mandated benefits and guaranteed access to insurance.

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written.

A 2008 publication "Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance," (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.

This doesn't mean sick people who have kept up their coverage but are more difficult to insure would be left out. Congressman Shadegg advocates government funding for high-risk pools, noting that their numbers are tiny. The big benefit would come from a market supply of affordable insurance.

 

[dblack]

Agreed. I also think there is a pathology in this country that presumes the way to address such moral yearnings is to order other people to do what we're too lazy to do ourselves. And that's what EMTALA does. It's what PPACA is all about.

To put it another way, if we think government should ensure that everyone has health care, then we should raise the funds legitimately, via taxation, and provide them with health care. I think it's wrong to simply turn to arbitrary mandates and demand that other people do things against their will to spare us from higher taxes.

We are actually in agreement on an extent, in that it would be better to tax and then direct address problems, instead of using regulations as a roundabout way to achieve the same end.

Such huge tax increases would never pass Congress. Which is why they didnt do that. And really the crux of Obamacare, which introduced a backdoor "tax" in the form of a mandate.

Yeah.. it was funny listening to them dance around this in court the last few days. All the discussion about whether it was a tax or not - and the justices kept asking "why didn't they just call it a tax". The lawyers kept whipping up bullshit reasons, but everyone in the room new it was because the congress folks just didn't want to cop to raising taxes for political reasons. So, instead, they come up with something much worse than a tax. Chickenshits.

 

[Polk]

He can't.

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Yes, in that insurance companies would be willing to sell a policy a pretty low price if it didn't cover anything.

 

[Polk]

He can't.

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Indeed it would, but since we don't how can it be regulated under the interstate commerce clause?

Because insurance is just a mechanism for delivering health care, which is definitely conducted across state lines.

 

[naturegirl]

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits. Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.

 

[Syphon]

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits. Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.

the ACA allows for that.

 

[naturegirl]

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits. Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.

the ACA allows for that.

So why is it 1100 pages?? It's what else that's in there that worries me, and most other Americans. Stuff we don't need if we take care of just those two little things.

 

[Polk]

He can't.

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Actually, it wouldn't. Take a few minutes and research where your credit cards are all based out of... I guarantee you that you'll find out they're all based out of two states, Utah and Delaware.

Then research WHY.

Once you're done you'll realize that allowing folks to purchase across state lines would open up a Pandora's box unlike anything you've ever seen. It's a good thing you can't purchase insurance across state lines. Plus, allowing purchase across state lines undercuts the power of the individual States, something I am not in favor of.

Now, if it does happen that the Feds and the States allow purchase across State lines then insurance will constitute interstate commerce and the mandate is back in play.

Even better? The bill the Republicans introduced to allow sales across state line includes the territories as states for the purpose of the bill. Which means your health insurance could be based on the rules of the Northern Mariana Islands. The same Northern Mariana Islands that still has sweatshops.

 

[Polk]

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits. Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.

the ACA allows for that.

The ACA does not get rid of the American Rule in malpractice suits.

 

[Syphon]

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits. Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.

the ACA allows for that.

So why is it 1100 pages?? It's what else that's in there that worries me, and most other Americans. Stuff we don't need if we take care of just those two little things.

maybe if you read it, you would have a better understanding of it.

 

[Syphon]

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Actually, it wouldn't. Take a few minutes and research where your credit cards are all based out of... I guarantee you that you'll find out they're all based out of two states, Utah and Delaware.

Then research WHY.

Once you're done you'll realize that allowing folks to purchase across state lines would open up a Pandora's box unlike anything you've ever seen. It's a good thing you can't purchase insurance across state lines. Plus, allowing purchase across state lines undercuts the power of the individual States, something I am not in favor of.

Now, if it does happen that the Feds and the States allow purchase across State lines then insurance will constitute interstate commerce and the mandate is back in play.

Even better? The bill the Republicans introduced to allow sales across state line includes the territories as states for the purpose of the bill. Which means your health insurance could be based on the rules of the Northern Mariana Islands. The same Northern Mariana Islands that still has sweatshops.

better yet, the only difference between the GOP plan (available on gop.gov) and the ACA is the removal of the mandate and the addition of tort reform.

so what is the GOP really offering thats different?

 

[Syphon]

We can fix Health Care costs fairly simply.........sell health insurance across state lines and pass a law that loser pays all in law suits. Those trial lawyers are going to be very careful who they sue.

Watch how health care becomes more affordable when companies face real competition and watch fees be significantly reduced when Ms. Suzie can't sue because doesn't like the way her toe looks after surgery to remove an ingrown toenail.

the ACA allows for that.

The ACA does not get rid of the American Rule in malpractice suits.

youre correct. sorry i was referring to selling across state lines. you are correct that it did not include tort reform. IMO it should have.

 

[Liability]

the ACA allows for that.

So why is it 1100 pages?? It's what else that's in there that worries me, and most other Americans. Stuff we don't need if we take care of just those two little things.

maybe if you read it, you would have a better understanding of it.

What a nonsensical reply.

It is not 1100 pages, first of all. It is over 2000 pages.

And it's not like reading a long novel like War and Peace.

It's legislation. It is written in the gibberish jargon used to amend various laws. IT is technical language on top of gibberish, in fact.

But if one does wade through the most operative provisions, what it says and seeks to accomplish is quite well known. It's not a mystery really (even though according to Pelousy it would become understood AFTER being enacted).

 

[dblack]

He can't.

Hell. Insurance companies can't even compete across State Lines in most States.

allowing sale of health insurance across state lines would go a long way to reducing costs for health insurance.

Yes, in that insurance companies would be willing to sell a policy a pretty low price if it didn't cover anything.

Yeah... if we could buy insurance policies that covered only the things we were actually worried about, we might be able to get some decent prices on insurance.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

There is tremendous competition among credit card issuers. I can choose from hundreds of cards offering many options to suit my particular situation.
I wish health care were that flexible.

Again, why are the credit card companies based in just a very VERY small handful of states (to my knowledge, two). Answer that one question and we can have an adult conversation on whether or not selling across state lines is a good idea.

Or, better yet, have you ever tried to sue or otherwise dispute charges or credit reports that come from your credit card? Take a while to research how that works.

I'm very much opposed to selling across state lines when it comes to Insurance. I'm still waiting for you all to do the research so you can understand why.

 

[Polk]

Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states without usury statutes.

 

[Liability]

Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states with usury statutes.

Wrong.

NY, for example has both civil usury laws (16%) [see, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501(1) and N.Y. Banking Law § 14-a(1)] and criminal usury laws (25%) [see, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40].

 

[Polk]

Because Delaware and South Dakota are the only states with usury statutes.

Wrong.

NY, for example has both civil usury laws (16%) [see, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501(1) and N.Y. Banking Law § 14-a(1)] and criminal usury laws (25%) [see, N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40].

Thanks for helping me catch my typo. They're the only states without usury statutes.