Serious Discussion Thread

[Oldandtired]

OK...IM game

 

[Oldandtired]

Tried this in another thread and I was ignored...so I will try it here.

I am for HRC.

I am for eliminating pre-existing condition clauses.

I am not for a government mandate to purchase insurance the day you are born and have insurance til the die you die.

Likely, if such mandate is passed, it will not make it past the first appeal.

Not using talking points, exactly how will insurance costs go down...or even stay constant....if we elimintate pre-exisitng conditions.

NO TALKING POINTS...I really would like an answer.

 

[Oldandtired]

Jeez....nothing.

I guess this board is all about confirming your sentiments and not actually debating the facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tried this in another thread and I was ignored...so I will try it here.

[I am for HRC.]

I am for eliminating pre-existing condition clauses.

I am not for a government mandate to purchase insurance the day you are born and have insurance til the die you die.

Likely, if such mandate is passed, it will not make it past the first appeal.

Not using talking points, exactly how will insurance costs go down...or even stay constant....if we elimintate pre-exisitng conditions.

NO TALKING POINTS...I really would like an answer.

[HRC? Human Rights Campaign? Hunting Retriever Club? Harry Ransom Center? Hillary Rodham Clinton?]

pre-existing condition clauses are unacceptable.

I support a mandate. I support a mandate similar to what we have with Social Security and other taxes.

Appeal to the courts? I think a mandate is legal because we have history and tradition on the side of mandates.

Insurance costs will go down the day non profit insurance takes over.

The costs of medical care/treatment, is stuffed with insurance demands and profits that have no rational reason for being---except to profit.

I am not anti-profit. I am anti-stupid.

 

[Oldandtired]

Tried this in another thread and I was ignored...so I will try it here.

[I am for HRC.]

I am for eliminating pre-existing condition clauses.

I am not for a government mandate to purchase insurance the day you are born and have insurance til the die you die.

Likely, if such mandate is passed, it will not make it past the first appeal.

Not using talking points, exactly how will insurance costs go down...or even stay constant....if we elimintate pre-exisitng conditions.

NO TALKING POINTS...I really would like an answer.

[HRC? Human Rights Campaign? Hunting Retriever Club? Harry Ransom Center? Hillary Rodham Clinton?]

pre-existing condition clauses are unacceptable.
agreed

I support a mandate. I support a mandate similar to what we have with Social Security and other taxes.
One is taken by the government...another is to purchase from a private company

Appeal to the courts? I think a mandate is legal because we have history and tradition on the side of mandates.
Nothing that says we MUST BUY a product or service from private industry

Insurance costs will go down the day non profit insurance takes over.
Costs to the insured, yes...Costs to insure the insured? How do you see that?

The costs of medical care/treatment, is stuffed with insurance demands and profits that have no rational reason for being---except to profit.
DO you know this as fact? Have you heard the "profit per capita per insured per year" number? I have not. But it exists. If it is so "b;loated" why are we not hearing about it?
I am not anti-profit. I am anti-stupid.

Saying this is implying that those that may see it differently are "stupid"...
I thought this was going to be a serious thread......did I miss something?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not anti-profit. I am anti-stupid.

Saying this is implying that those that may see it differently are "stupid"...
I thought this was going to be a serious thread......did I miss something?

I say stupid, because to be anti-profit is stupid. but to be totally against non profit is also stupid.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) I support a mandate. I support a mandate similar to what we have with Social Security and other taxes.

1)
One is taken by the government...another is to purchase from a private company

---

2) Appeal to the courts? I think a mandate is legal because we have history and tradition on the side of mandates.

2)
Nothing that says we MUST BUY a product or service from private industry

---

3) Insurance costs will go down the day non profit insurance takes over.

3) Costs to the insured, yes...Costs to insure the insured? How do you see that?

---

4)The costs of medical care/treatment, is stuffed with insurance demands and profits that have no rational reason for being---except to profit.

4) DO you know this as fact? Have you heard the "profit per capita per insured per year" number? I have not. But it exists. If it is so "b;loated" why are we not hearing about it?

1) True. The government already demands Americans buy insurance. Arguments are being made that this is a violation of rights, but right now they are only arguments.

Fact is right now, we as citizens, by government mandate, must buy insurance. (love commas today)

2) See #1.

3) Taking the profit out of medical visits is already being done. You can research it. Much lower per visit when paying cash. Why? No paper work, no hassles with insurance approval.

4) Yes it is a fact. Ask any medical professional. We don't hear about it because it is considered a radical concept by some.

see: How Switzerland does it...

and... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/ ...read about hos 5 Capitalist Democracies approach Health Care...flaws and all.

 

[xsited1]

 

[Oldandtired]

Dante....when are we demanded to buy insurance? What mandate are you referring to?

And I am sorry....I have yet to hear anyone talk about "profit per capita per insuired per year" norr do I hear anyone discussing profit margin.

All I hear about is profit in dollars.

But interesdtingly, profit in dollars means nothing.

If it costs you 100 in a year to make 101 you are making only a 1% profit.

If it costs you 50 a year to make 101 you are earning the same profit, but your margin is infinately better....but your revenue is the same

Why are we only hearing profit in dollars?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante....when are we demanded to buy insurance? What mandate are you referring to?

And I am sorry....I have yet to hear anyone talk about "profit per capita per insuired per year" norr do I hear anyone discussing profit margin.

All I hear about is profit in dollars.

But interesdtingly, profit in dollars means nothing.

If it costs you 100 in a year to make 101 you are making only a 1% profit.

If it costs you 50 a year to make 101 you are earning the same profit, but your margin is infinately better....but your revenue is the same

Why are we only hearing profit in dollars?

Home insurance for mortgage loans, car insurance, are provided by the private sector.

The insurance paperwork and training costs (not to mention the profit margins involved) to a medical office or a physician is a huge part of doing biz. Some people harp on malpractice insurance, but I heard that pales in comparison.

Sick Around The World is a starting point for intelligent debate or discussion in this area, otherwise we are just offering old and tired opinions that neither address nor look at what is possible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

then there is this: Is Mandatory Health Insurance Constitutional? - - CBS News

Timothy Jost, a professor of Washington and Lee University School of Law who says he prefers a national public plan, has argued the constitutional principles -- saying in a Politico.com essay that the question was a Republican "talking point" that shouldn't be taken terribly seriously. "A basic principle of our constitutional system for the last two centuries has been that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution, and the Constitution the court now recognizes would permit Congress to adopt health care reform," Jost wrote.

Probably the most extensive, or at least heavily-footnoted, argument in favor of the proposal's constitutionality comes from Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest University. In a 27-page paper prepared for Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute, Hall acknowledges that the federal government "has limited powers" and a law requiring Americans to "transfer money to a private party for health or economic purposes seems to be unprecedented" because laws tend to prohibit such purchases rather than mandate them.

But after walking through the arguments, Hall concludes that there are no legal objections likely to be sustained by the current Supreme Court: "Either state or federal government may require either individuals or employers to pay for health insurance. States have inherent power to promote health and provide for the general welfare. The federal government has authority under its power to regulate interstate commerce... These major points of constitutional law appear to be firmly established and are not likely to change based on the near-term composition of the Court."

So what are the objections? They tend to come from libertarians and conservatives, who agree with Hall that the U.S. Constitution grants the federal government certain limited powers -- but, while Hall interprets the language broadly and permissively, they interpret it more strictly.


To understand these back-and-forth arguments, let's start with the text of the U.S. Constitution. The document's very first sentence says "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," followed by a later sentence saying Congress has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." (Emphasis added.) And of course there's the Tenth Amendment, which says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (See our related CBSNews.com article on a grassroots effort to breathe new life into the Tenth Amendment.)

Hall suggests two paths a federal mandate can take: through the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce, also known as the Commerce Clause, and Congress' power to levy taxes and spend funds for the "general welfare of the United States."

Randy Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, rejects those two arguments in a Politico.com essay. Barnett says the Commerce Clause "was designed to deprive states of their powers under the Articles to erect trade barriers to commerce among the several states," and "did not reach activities that were neither commerce, nor interstate." As for the spending power: "There is no such enumerated power. There is only the enumerated power to tax... So we return to the previous issue: what enumerated end or object is Congress spending money to accomplish?"

In their Wall Street Journal op-ed, David Rivkin and Lee Casey take aim at Democratic Sen. Max Baucus' proposal that includes levying a $1,500 annual tax on uninsured Americans. They say: "Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a 'tax' that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by 'taxing' anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables."

Unfortunately for legal prognosticators, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided no exact guidance. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), a majority concluded that a federal law prohibiting a California woman from growing marijuana for her own medical use is "entitled to a strong presumption of validity" -- and authorized by the Commerce Clause -- even if state law permits the medicinal use of cannabis. On the other hand, in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), the court struck down a gun-related law on the grounds that it lacked "any concrete tie to interstate commerce."

Unfortunately for legal prognosticators, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided no exact guidance. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), a majority concluded that a federal law prohibiting a California woman from growing marijuana for her own medical use is "entitled to a strong presumption of validity" -- and authorized by the Commerce Clause -- even if state law permits the medicinal use of cannabis. On the other hand, in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), the court struck down a gun-related law on the grounds that it lacked "any concrete tie to interstate commerce."

Because Gonzales v. Raich is more recent, it's presumably a better glimpse into what the court thinks. (As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a strongly-worded dissent siding with the medical marijuana patient named Angel Raich, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.")

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote an article responding to Gonzales v. Raich that concludes the decision "seems to all but eliminate the prospect of meaningful judicial restriction of congressional Commerce Clause authority." Somin writes for the Volokh.com Web site, where he says: "It is extremely rare for the Court to strike down a law that enjoys strong majority support from both the general public and the political elite, and is a major item on the current political agenda. Doing that is likely to create a head-on confrontation between the Court and the political branches of government, which the Court will almost certainly lose, as happened when the Court struck down various New Deal laws in the 1930s." He adds that while the Supreme Court is likely to uphold mandatory health insurance, "such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause -- or any interpretation that takes the constitutional text seriously."

Then again, a must-purchase-or-be-fined insurance law remains a recognizably different creature than the medical marijuana case, which dealt with punishing undesirable behavior criminally rather than requiring all Americans to purchase a service from a private company. (Automobile insurance isn't an exact parallel because only Americans who choose to drive must buy it, and the requirement comes from the states, not the Feds.) And it's true that the composition of the court has changed in the years since Gonzales v. Raich.

Still, not even conservative and libertarian scholars who would like to see mandatory health insurance shot down by the courts are betting it will be, although Georgetown's Randy Barnett holds out some hope. Call it the difference between political preference and reality, or the difference between what is and what might be.

 

[Oldandtired]

Dante....when are we demanded to buy insurance? What mandate are you referring to?

And I am sorry....I have yet to hear anyone talk about "profit per capita per insuired per year" norr do I hear anyone discussing profit margin.

All I hear about is profit in dollars.

But interesdtingly, profit in dollars means nothing.

If it costs you 100 in a year to make 101 you are making only a 1% profit.

If it costs you 50 a year to make 101 you are earning the same profit, but your margin is infinately better....but your revenue is the same

Why are we only hearing profit in dollars?

Home insurance for mortgage loans, car insurance, are provided by the private sector.

Both of which are consequences of your own decision to buy a home or a car. You are not forced at birth to be insured. You are only mandated if you opt to buy something else. You can choose to rent and to take mass transit if you wish to not purchase insurance.

The insurance paperwork and training costs (not to mention the profit margins involved) to a medical office or a physician is a huge part of doing biz. Some people harp on malpractice insurance, but I heard that pales in comparison.

I do not see anything nor have I heard anything that will eliminate paperwork.


Sick Around The World is a starting point for intelligent debate or discussion in this area, otherwise we are just offering old and tired opinions that neither address nor look at what is possible.

You seem to believe that the best solution is the one on the table...and maybe it is.....but I have yet to hear anyone tell the truth.

We will need a public option if we are going to eliminate pre existing condition clauses. It will cost the taxpayer more as eliminating pre existing conditions will increase the cost to care for all those insured..

And guess what....if congress was honest and admitted this and explained that this will be the only way we can ensure that a 24 year old who survived lukemia as a child will get inusred.....it will be very difficult for people to argue it.

But instead, they are saying it will cost less and debating the validity of that....and not addrerssing the truth...

Healthcare is expensive and cancer survivovors are getting fucked when they become adults.......lets see some Republican say "who cares" to THAT!

And yes...I am a conservative...but I am also a realist.....we need to do it right or not do it at all...and not doing it at all is not fair to that 24 year old cancer survivor....so we must fdo it right.

We need to know it will cost us a lot of money and come to terms with it...and start a PO.

 

[xotoxi]

I agree. Moreover, I concur.

Nonetheless, I reserve the right to change my stance on this issue.

I second the motion, raise you $20, and Call.

FOLD.

<---Poker face.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante....when are we demanded to buy insurance? What mandate are you referring to?

And I am sorry....I have yet to hear anyone talk about "profit per capita per insuired per year" norr do I hear anyone discussing profit margin.

All I hear about is profit in dollars.

But interesdtingly, profit in dollars means nothing.

If it costs you 100 in a year to make 101 you are making only a 1% profit.

If it costs you 50 a year to make 101 you are earning the same profit, but your margin is infinately better....but your revenue is the same

Why are we only hearing profit in dollars?

Home insurance for mortgage loans, car insurance, are provided by the private sector.

Both of which are consequences of your own decision to buy a home or a car. You are not forced at birth to be insured. You are only mandated if you opt to buy something else. You can choose to rent and to take mass transit if you wish to not purchase insurance.

The insurance paperwork and training costs (not to mention the profit margins involved) to a medical office or a physician is a huge part of doing biz. Some people harp on malpractice insurance, but I heard that pales in comparison.

I do not see anything nor have I heard anything that will eliminate paperwork.


Sick Around The World is a starting point for intelligent debate or discussion in this area, otherwise we are just offering old and tired opinions that neither address nor look at what is possible.

I never said buying car insurance was not different. It is an obvious fact.

The whole argument about a cost analysis and whether or not you see paper work as an issue is really irrelevant. Profit is a high percentage of health care delivery. Eliminate that like other countries have (see: FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS ) and costs will go down.

 

[Oldandtired]

Home insurance for mortgage loans, car insurance, are provided by the private sector.

Both of which are consequences of your own decision to buy a home or a car. You are not forced at birth to be insured. You are only mandated if you opt to buy something else. You can choose to rent and to take mass transit if you wish to not purchase insurance.

The insurance paperwork and training costs (not to mention the profit margins involved) to a medical office or a physician is a huge part of doing biz. Some people harp on malpractice insurance, but I heard that pales in comparison.

I do not see anything nor have I heard anything that will eliminate paperwork.


Sick Around The World is a starting point for intelligent debate or discussion in this area, otherwise we are just offering old and tired opinions that neither address nor look at what is possible.

I never said buying car insurance was not different. It is an obvious fact.

The whole argument about a cost analysis and whether or not you see paper work as an issue is really irrelevant. Profit is a high percentage of health care delivery. Eliminate that like other countries have (see: FRONTLINE: sick around the world: five capitalist democracies & how they do it | PBS ) and costs will go down.[/QUOTE]

I am not far off in agreeing with you.....but that is why I want to know the "profit per capita" number.
Yet my senators AND congressperson has ignored everyone of my requests for that number. All they respond with is the "dollars" figure which means nothing to me....and not even an accurate number....."hundreds of billions of dollars" is the exact term all three of them used in my return email....

It is like they are intentionally avoiding offering me that number.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You seem to believe that the best solution is the one on the table...and maybe it is.....but I have yet to hear anyone tell the truth.

We will need a public option if we are going to eliminate pre existing condition clauses. It will cost the taxpayer more as eliminating pre existing conditions will increase the cost to care for all those insured..

And guess what....if congress was honest and admitted this and explained that this will be the only way we can ensure that a 24 year old who survived lukemia as a child will get inusred.....it will be very difficult for people to argue it.

But instead, they are saying it will cost less and debating the validity of that....and not addrerssing the truth...

Healthcare is expensive and cancer survivovors are getting fucked when they become adults.......lets see some Republican say "who cares" to THAT!

And yes...I am a conservative...but I am also a realist.....we need to do it right or not do it at all...and not doing it at all is not fair to that 24 year old cancer survivor....so we must fdo it right.

We need to know it will cost us a lot of money and come to terms with it...and start a PO.

The truth? Truth is what it is. I guess you are hearing spin, and lies, and misconceptions, and willful ignorance, deceit and deception...it's politics. It's about $$$$$$$ and power.

Your public option scenario is leaving out far too much to be tackled. There is the cost of the uninsured already. There is the larger pools of people to spread the costs/margins. There is more. A simplistic and marginally informed argument is what it amounts to.

We already pay the highest amount in dollars for health care. You are missing the forest for the trees.

You have ignored any and all links to informed and intelligent info posted. You have an opinion and no matter the facts---the truth, you will not be swayed.

At least that is how I read you.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not far off in agreeing with you.....but that is why I want to know the "profit per capita" number.
Yet my senators AND congressperson has ignored everyone of my requests for that number. All they respond with is the "dollars" figure which means nothing to me....and not even an accurate number....."hundreds of billions of dollars" is the exact term all three of them used in my return email....

It is like they are intentionally avoiding offering me that number.

I doubt anybody is intentionally avoiding offering you an answer. You appear to have an agenda. You seem to be heading towards an argument about costs based on a narrow view. That's okay. It's your time and effort.

See what others do. Compare costs. See what else is out there. We need not copy anyone. We should be looking at how everyone else deals with insurance costs.
When we do, I bet the lower cost efforts will never be contributed to a for profit system.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

maybe old and tired can find what he seeks here: Congressional Budget Office - Health

 

[Oldandtired]

You seem to believe that the best solution is the one on the table...and maybe it is.....but I have yet to hear anyone tell the truth.

We will need a public option if we are going to eliminate pre existing condition clauses. It will cost the taxpayer more as eliminating pre existing conditions will increase the cost to care for all those insured..

And guess what....if congress was honest and admitted this and explained that this will be the only way we can ensure that a 24 year old who survived lukemia as a child will get inusred.....it will be very difficult for people to argue it.

But instead, they are saying it will cost less and debating the validity of that....and not addrerssing the truth...

Healthcare is expensive and cancer survivovors are getting fucked when they become adults.......lets see some Republican say "who cares" to THAT!

And yes...I am a conservative...but I am also a realist.....we need to do it right or not do it at all...and not doing it at all is not fair to that 24 year old cancer survivor....so we must fdo it right.

We need to know it will cost us a lot of money and come to terms with it...and start a PO.

The truth? Truth is what it is. I guess you are hearing spin, and lies, and misconceptions, and willful ignorance, deceit and deception...it's politics. It's about $$$$$$$ and power.

Your public option scenario is leaving out far too much to be tackled. There is the cost of the uninsured already. There is the larger pools of people to spread the costs/margins. There is more. A simplistic and marginally informed argument is what it amounts to.

We already pay the highest amount in dollars for health care. You are missing the forest for the trees.

You have ignored any and all links to informed and intelligent info posted. You have an opinion and no matter the facts---the truth, you will not be swayed.

At least that is how I read you.

Prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong?

How is this.

I have been against the reform that is being proposed from day 1. And then I decided to look into it on my own....

ANd I am a staunch conservative who is a realists and I recognize the need for reform, the need to eliminate pre existing clauses and the need for a public option.

And I havbe posted that several times.

No, I have not gone to your links...I have saved them and plan to address them all at one....when I have the time.

Sorry Dante....you seem to be clouded...I was asking legit questions so I can either confirm my new hypothesis, or debunk it.

You do not know when one is asking legit questions...maybe you should take a break from the "I am right, you are worng, I am smart, you are an idiot" faux debate forum.

I really was looking for answers......and I thought your thread was an opening to get them. Instead, you opted to recite and then insinuate.

Sorry to have bothered you....and if you have time...take a look at some of the other recent posts of mine.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Not using talking points, exactly how will insurance costs go down...or even stay constant....if we elimintate pre-exisitng conditions.

It only works if you mandate everyone, no exceptions, has to buy health insurance. The idea is that the increased risk from elimination of Pre-Existing Conditions will be spread around to everyone. Because everyone now has health insurance, there will not be folks that are forced to welch on hospital bills, nor will there be medical related bankruptcy.

Part of that sounds reasonable on paper. Part of the reason costs for hospitals is so high is because a person without health insurance is basically a financial black hole for the hospital thanks to the vicious cycle that has developed. Costs increased to cover those that can't pay, meaning more can't pay, meaning costs increase and so on.

With everyone on insurance, theoretically everyone should be able to pay so you get the cycle back under control.

However, I'm against a mandate without a public option for those that can't afford insurance or can't get it through work. Following Katrina, my wife and I were part time employees (Visiting Assistant Professors) at a University. As part time employees, we didn't get health insurance and had to go out on the market on our own.

We were both 30, with no major health issues. We didn't drink, smoke, or do drugs. No STD's or bizarre health risking habits.

The insurance rates we got were ridiculous. I mean purely outrageous. COBRA was a joke and unaffordable on halftime pay. We sucked it up and bought insurance, but it was a major financial drain and the coverage was half of what we'd had as employees. As soon as we could switch to an employer based system we did. Our premiums and deductibles went down and our coverage and access to care increased.

In theory, with everyone on the market the plans and coverage should approach reasonable levels. In theory. I am very skeptical. I will probably not give up my employer based coverage until absolutely forced after my experience trying to "go it alone."