I predict a 6-3 decision

[WillowTree]

5-4

Both parties seem to favor voting along party lines. The Supreme Court is a joke.

If its found unconstitutional, thats actually bad news for Republicans. It means the only other choice for universal coverage is single payer, government run.

If the mandate is struck down, the movement for single payer will grow to epic porportions.

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

 

[blackhawk]

I think the individual mandate goes for sure maybe one or two other things as well the rest of it stays.

 

[Trajan]

yea sounds good..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...on-obamacare-yes-no-whats-the-vote-tally.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

5-4

Both parties seem to favor voting along party lines. The Supreme Court is a joke.

If its found unconstitutional, thats actually bad news for Republicans. It means the only other choice for universal coverage is single payer, government run.

If the mandate is struck down, the movement for single payer will grow to epic porportions.

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

Hawaii tried that a few years back and had to suspend it because everybody was dropping their coverage to get the free stuff.

 

[Big Fitz]

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

Hawaii tried that a few years back and had to suspend it because everybody was dropping their coverage to get the free stuff.

quelle suprise!

 

[Vidi]

5-4

Both parties seem to favor voting along party lines. The Supreme Court is a joke.

If its found unconstitutional, thats actually bad news for Republicans. It means the only other choice for universal coverage is single payer, government run.

If the mandate is struck down, the movement for single payer will grow to epic porportions.

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

Then the mandate would have solved that issue wouldnt it?

 

[Vidi]

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

Hawaii tried that a few years back and had to suspend it because everybody was dropping their coverage to get the free stuff.

single payer will kill the health insurance industry, thus destroying a LOT of jobs. My wifes job included.

But without the mandate, its the only other option to get everyone covered.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

Then the mandate would have solved that issue wouldnt it?

It worked so well in Massachusetts, didn't it?

Oh, wait.

 

[Vidi]

Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.

Then the mandate would have solved that issue wouldnt it?

It worked so well in Massachusetts, didn't it?

Oh, wait.

A study conducted by the Urban Institute and released in December 2010 by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy stated that as of June 2010, 98.1 percent of state residents had coverage. This compared to 97.3 percent having coverage in the state in 2009 and 83.3 percent having coverage nationwide. Among children and seniors the 2010 coverage rate was even higher, at 99.8 percent and 99.6 percent respectively. The breakdown of insurance coverage consisted of that 65.1 percent of state residents being covered by employers, 16.4 percent by Medicare, and 16.6 percent via public plans such as Commonwealth Care. The state's Secretary of Health and Human Services, JudyAnn Bigby, said, “Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary. With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation.”[43]

In June 2011 a Boston Globe review concluded that the healthcare overhaul "has, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected."[44] A study by the fiscally conservative Beacon Hill Institute was of the view that the reform was "responsible for a dramatic increase in health care spending," however.[45]

In March 2012, the National Bureau of Economic research released a working paper claiming "that health care reform in Massachusetts led to better overall self-assessed health... [and] improvements in several determinants of overall health, including physical health, mental health, functional limitations, joint disorders, body mass index, and moderate physical activity." [46]

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spending on health care went UP...good for the Health Care industry and Health Insurance industry, while medical outcomes for the population also improved.

So yeah...it did.

 

[Big Fitz]

single payer will kill the health insurance industry, thus destroying a LOT of jobs. My wifes job included.

But without the mandate, its the only other option to get everyone covered.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's lumber companies in the midwest and pacific northwest did not handle medical care for their employees in a very high risk occupation. What happened was that the local hospitals, and yes there were some, sent salesmen out into the lumber camps to sell "Hospital Tickets". These tickets were used to cover ALL medical expenses that a lumberjack might need if they got sick or injured. They cost about 5 dollars and what often happened if a man could not get a Hospital Ticket, the men chipped in voluntarily to help out those who could not afford it.

This is a great example of both early insurance, AND a methodology that could and should be used to get the costs of health care lower without government interference and actually lessening government oversight and involvement. If hospital chains were not barred from selling "Memberships" or "Insurance" to their hospitals, they would be able to offer services much cheaper and at different plans and coverages.

This idea was retried again in NY state by a GP doctor offering general coverage and preventive medicine for 30 bucks a month IIRC (no I couldn't find the article again, I just remember it because it was neat to see). So what happened? The state Attorney General, backed by the insurance companies shut him down on this practice because he was not a licensed insurance company. Classic example of protectionism in action.

Mind you, this methodology would not work for beyond basic medical needs that a GP could handle. It wouldn't work well for specialists I don't think unless they were in a hospital setting. That said, the increased competitions by Hospital firms entering the 'Insurance' market would be a great benefit to consumers everywhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then the mandate would have solved that issue wouldnt it?

It worked so well in Massachusetts, didn't it?

Oh, wait.

A study conducted by the Urban Institute and released in December 2010 by the Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy stated that as of June 2010, 98.1 percent of state residents had coverage. This compared to 97.3 percent having coverage in the state in 2009 and 83.3 percent having coverage nationwide. Among children and seniors the 2010 coverage rate was even higher, at 99.8 percent and 99.6 percent respectively. The breakdown of insurance coverage consisted of that 65.1 percent of state residents being covered by employers, 16.4 percent by Medicare, and 16.6 percent via public plans such as Commonwealth Care. The state's Secretary of Health and Human Services, JudyAnn Bigby, said, “Massachusetts' achievements in health care reform have been nothing short of extraordinary. With employers, government and individuals all sharing the responsibility of reform, we continue to have the highest insurance rate in the nation.”[43]

In June 2011 a Boston Globe review concluded that the healthcare overhaul "has, after five years, worked as well as or better than expected."[44] A study by the fiscally conservative Beacon Hill Institute was of the view that the reform was "responsible for a dramatic increase in health care spending," however.[45]

In March 2012, the National Bureau of Economic research released a working paper claiming "that health care reform in Massachusetts led to better overall self-assessed health... [and] improvements in several determinants of overall health, including physical health, mental health, functional limitations, joint disorders, body mass index, and moderate physical activity." [46]

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spending on health care went UP...good for the Health Care industry and Health Insurance industry, while medical outcomes for the population also improved.

So yeah...it did.

What was the percentage of people covered by their employer lower than 65% before the law was implemented? That is what you have to show to make your point, not that a study shows more people are covered.

Besides, the entire justification for the mandate was that it would decrease health care spending, not increase it.

 

[Vidi]

bigrebnc1775[/B]
Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.


Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.


Hawaii tried that a few years back and had to suspend it because everybody was dropping their coverage to get the free stuff.


single payer will kill the health insurance industry, thus destroying a LOT of jobs. My wifes job included.

But without the mandate, its the only other option to get everyone covered.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's lumber companies in the midwest and pacific northwest did not handle medical care for their employees in a very high risk occupation. What happened was that the local hospitals, and yes there were some, sent salesmen out into the lumber camps to sell "Hospital Tickets". These tickets were used to cover ALL medical expenses that a lumberjack might need if they got sick or injured. They cost about 5 dollars and what often happened if a man could not get a Hospital Ticket, the men chipped in voluntarily to help out those who could not afford it.

This is a great example of both early insurance, AND a methodology that could and should be used to get the costs of health care lower. If hospital chains were not barred from selling "Memberships" or "Insurance" to their hospitals, they would be able to offer services much cheaper and at different plans and coverages.

This idea was retried again in NY state by a GP doctor offering general coverage and preventive medicine for 30 bucks a month IIRC (no I couldn't find the article again, I just remember it because it was neat to see). So what happened? The state Attorney General, backed by the insurance companies shut him down on this practice because he was not a licensed insurance company. Classic example of protectionism in action.

Mind you, this methodology would not work for beyond basic medical needs that a GP could handle. It wouldn't work well for specialists I don't think unless they were in a hospital setting. That said, the increased competitions by Hospital firms entering the 'Insurance' market would be a great benefit to consumers everywhere.

Interesting concept.

What do you think those "memberships" would cost today? Would we then not find ourselves in a situation very much worse than we have today where employers refuse to provide health insurance, memberships priced out of the range of the average worker and health care being given only to a select few?

What would prevent such things?

Just asking, not attacking.

 

[Big Fitz]

bigrebnc1775[/B]
Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree
Quote: Originally Posted by Charles_Main

I have said all along, as much as I don't like Single Payer, it would be a Huge Improvement on the Joke Obama and the Dems Sold us.


Single payer won't work, we have more takers than we have givers, it's doomed from the start.


Hawaii tried that a few years back and had to suspend it because everybody was dropping their coverage to get the free stuff.


single payer will kill the health insurance industry, thus destroying a LOT of jobs. My wifes job included.

But without the mandate, its the only other option to get everyone covered.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's lumber companies in the midwest and pacific northwest did not handle medical care for their employees in a very high risk occupation. What happened was that the local hospitals, and yes there were some, sent salesmen out into the lumber camps to sell "Hospital Tickets". These tickets were used to cover ALL medical expenses that a lumberjack might need if they got sick or injured. They cost about 5 dollars and what often happened if a man could not get a Hospital Ticket, the men chipped in voluntarily to help out those who could not afford it.

This is a great example of both early insurance, AND a methodology that could and should be used to get the costs of health care lower. If hospital chains were not barred from selling "Memberships" or "Insurance" to their hospitals, they would be able to offer services much cheaper and at different plans and coverages.

This idea was retried again in NY state by a GP doctor offering general coverage and preventive medicine for 30 bucks a month IIRC (no I couldn't find the article again, I just remember it because it was neat to see). So what happened? The state Attorney General, backed by the insurance companies shut him down on this practice because he was not a licensed insurance company. Classic example of protectionism in action.

Mind you, this methodology would not work for beyond basic medical needs that a GP could handle. It wouldn't work well for specialists I don't think unless they were in a hospital setting. That said, the increased competitions by Hospital firms entering the 'Insurance' market would be a great benefit to consumers everywhere.

Interesting concept.

What do you think those "memberships" would cost today? Would we then not find ourselves in a situation very much worse than we have today where employers refuse to provide health insurance, memberships priced out of the range of the average worker and health care being given only to a select few?

What would prevent such things?

Just asking, not attacking.

Depends on the services available from the provider, size of membership group as a share of their overall capacity. Think of all the cost savings provided by cutting out the insurance companies by going directly to the hospital chain with your cash. Guaranteed monthly payments and profitability because cost still would matter to both sides of the deal. You want deluxe services, you pay deluxe prices. You want basic services, it's a rather simple price.

The problem you could have is if you do poor pricing and you get rushed on lots of services in something that is low profit/high cost. Of course, you still have a la carte options you could make.

The major barrier right now is the perception of what the health care industry and health insurance industry is. Not to mention the pure power the government wants to retain. Many things could be corrected if you got the feds and states out of deciding policy of hospitals and treatment, and stick to the fundamentals of consumer protections, weights and measures and fair business practices. State mandates should be eliminated purely because they're made for political reasons often pushed by do-gooders who have no business pushing their ideas of what people should be forced to buy and how it's provided, not the businesses themselves.

Look at what it costs you for health insurance for a family of 4 with no major medical issues, between 500 and 1500 a month depending on state et all. How can that money be better spent by a hospital if it went directly to them, and not filtered through an insurance firm. (consider also many hospitals would have to staff up with insurance like staff to manage this type of program, so the loss to the industry might be negligible)

Better still, say you get a 'family wellness plan' for 80 bucks a month that covers all local clinics under the hospital umbrella for say preventive and basic care that doesn't have a lot of cost per visit. Figure it covers a family of 4's yearly checkup and minor health care like broken bones to shots and diagnosing and treatment of non-hospitalization illnesses. You know, the bread and butter of most clinics. That's almost 1200 a year made for what is probably 800 in costs unless you have a rough year. Anything extra, gotta pay with a secondary insurance OR buy separate per item. No government. No extra company to deal with. No need for third party control or permission. You and your doctor deal with it. Take that pressure off insurance, and let them handle the BIG stuff like cancer, heart attack, critical care/ICU, maternity.... you're looking fairly good on prices there too.

So, that's one way to lessen costs and maintain individual freedom and free up markets. (oh and if you make all pricing public... watch the prices drop as plans start competing for market share all the more just like car insurance)

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

5-4

Both parties seem to favor voting along party lines. The Supreme Court is a joke.

If its found unconstitutional, thats actually bad news for Republicans. It means the only other choice for universal coverage is single payer, government run.

If the mandate is struck down, the movement for single payer will grow to epic porportions.

Doesn't matter. Without a Constitutional Amendment, single payer is a fantasy and nothing more.

 

[percysunshine]

I predict 4 votes to keep Obamacare as is, 3 votes to toss the whole law, and 2 votes to toss the mandate and the insurance reforms. This will give a 6-3 decision against the mandate.

I predict Quantum Windbag is going to be wrong.

There is no logic behind my prediction other than that the odds are in my favor.

Works for me.

On the other hand, if I am right I am going to look really smart.

if it is 9-0 to overturn, you will be 2/3rds smart.