Individual Healthcare mandate upheld

[A.Nonymous]

The analogy to car insurance fails. Your body is not a car.

​

Hospitals must treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

​

The mandate will lower costs to those who have health insurance.​

One, by treating people prior cost escalation.​

Two, by making those that can afford insurance, but gambled and lost, pay, rather than filing for bankruptcy.​

It really doesn't fail. The legally required car insurance covers the other guy, not you. I'm not required to have insurance that covers my car. If I wrap my car around a tree, I'm up a creek. I'm not required to have insurance that covers me. With health insurance, the feds are requiring you to cover yourself.

Show me another example where you are taxed for NOT doing something.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... If you don't have health insurance, the only way you won't need medical attention is if you die before reaching the hospital. ...

Not necessarily, autopsies are often performed to determine cause of death.​

 

[Bob Maxey]

The SC made its ruling and that DOES NOT mean the next President cannot kill it off. My fear is the next El-presidente will not kill the bill. God help us if it is Obama.

Second, read the 2600 page bill and get back to me. There are things hidden in the bill that should scare you. No matter what Congress or Obama says, what is written down is all that matters.

i think there is a provision in the bill that says if your employer makes the slightest change to your coverage, it goes away. Some will be exempt but most will pay lots at the end of the year. Those new RS hires will be very busy and the public will likely learn that when you get what you ask for, it is sometimes not what you think you want.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... i think there is a provision in the bill that says if your employer makes the slightest change to your coverage, it goes away. ...

i think there is a provision in the bill that says if your employer murders you your coverage goes away and your employer's action is justified homicide in that it was a reduction in force.

Read the 2600 page bill and get back to me.

 

[OutofDate1980]

It really doesn't fail. The legally required car insurance covers the other guy, not you. I'm not required to have insurance that covers my car. If I wrap my car around a tree, I'm up a creek. I'm not required to have insurance that covers me. With health insurance, the feds are requiring you to cover yourself.

Show me another example where you are taxed for NOT doing something.

Payment for health insurance covers everybody else that would otherwise have to pay for the uninsured, i.e. harm to those that have health insurance.

​

I guess it depends on how the question is framed. If you fail to do something within your ability to do and this inaction causes harm to others, can the government impose sanctions ?

Is the government promoting personal responsibility ? Is this a bad thing ?

​

The government imposes penalties for NOT doing the following:

​

Failure of 18 year old males to register for the draft.​

Failure to maintain your property.​

Failure to maintain your vehicle.​

Failure to file tax returns.​

Failure to care for your children.​

Failure to maintain a safe working environment.​

Failure to have health insurance. (Effective 2014)

​

The list is very extensive.​

 

[A.Nonymous]

Those are crimes under the law. Failure to have health insurance isn't a crime. It's a cause for a tax. Big difference. There's a big difference between punishing someone for something that is a criminal act under the law and taxing someone for not purchasing a product.

 

[OutofDate1980]

So you'd be ok with the government FORCING you to buy healthy foods and fining you if you didn't?

Supreme Court saves Romney Care.

Obamacare & The Broccoli Argument - The Colbert Report - 2012-28-06 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[OutofDate1980]

Those are crimes under the law. Failure to have health insurance isn't a crime. It's a cause for a tax. Big difference. There's a big difference between punishing someone for something that is a criminal act under the law and taxing someone for not purchasing a product.

So your argument is that not having health insurance should be a crime ?

Throw the freeloaders under the jail ?

 

[A.Nonymous]

So your argument is that not having health insurance should be a crime ?

Throw the freeloaders under the jail ?

No. My argument is the feds shouldn't force you to buy a product. I can't think of any other situations where you are taxed for not buying something.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So everyone thinks that having the uninsured being a burden without penalty on the insured's health insurance premiums and hospital/doctor's bills is ok? We (the insured) have shouldered the responsibility long enough and frankly I am tired of it. The new law should lower premiums paid by employer/employee and allow the difference to be put towards increasing wages, other benefits, etc. The preventative care mandate alone is reason for it, as most major health issues can be caught early and therefore cost of treatment is drastically reduced. Most people do not go to the doctor until it is too late, and preventative care costs are a major reason why. Diagnostic tests are expensive.

My employer currently pays ~ $15,000 a year for my family's healthcare coverage. If others were forced to take personal responsibility for their healthcare costs and coverage, that amount would go down significantly along with the billed costs.

The new law won't lower premiums though. The logic behind this is sheer insanity. It kind of goes like this.

1. There are a bunch of people who are uninsured.
2. They are uninsured because they either choose to not buy insurance or they can't afford it with the majority falling in the second category.
3. The solution is to pass a law requiring that everyone buy insurance and we'll subsidize those who can't afford to.

How does that make sense? Would it not make more sense to address the problem of why it costs so much more to provide healthcare in this country than it does elsewhere? That is the root of the problem. Of course that involves politicians being the pockets of various lobbies so we don't want to talk about that. I had several clients who were healthcare providers. None of them were fans of this bill as they all claimed it would drive their costs up. Who do you think they're going to pass those costs along to?

 

[saptech]

Yes, let's make this about anything BUT health insurance companies practices, which are squeezing the actual health care providers (you know, the ones who actually do the medical work). It's why doctors have less and less time to spend with each patient. And why health insurance costs quadruple over the last few decades. And why, as costs for services rise, insurance companies increasingly make money by denying healthcare coverage instead of providing it.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yes, let's make this about anything BUT health insurance companies practices, which are squeezing the actual health care providers (you know, the ones who actually do the medical work). It's why doctors have less and less time to spend with each patient. And why health insurance costs quadruple over the last few decades. And why, as costs for services rise, insurance companies increasingly make money by denying healthcare coverage instead of providing it.

But Congress can't address those problems because those same health insurance companies are lining their pockets.

 

[OutofDate1980]

But Congress can't address those problems because those same health insurance companies are lining their pockets.

OK, now we're talking cost efficiency. My understanding is health cost is about 18% of US GDP, so I believe Obama/Romney care is a small step in cost containment.

Concentrated insurance companies have a vested financial interest. Do we replace them with a single payer system ? Tough battle, as their leaders will finance public officials that will protect pricing power.​

 

[A.Nonymous]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the feds getting involved in anything is going to make it more cost efficient.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the feds getting involved in anything is going to make it more cost efficient.

CBO projects net saving of $138 billion over 1st 10-year period and $1.2 trillion over the following 10 year period.

 

[ylexot]

CBO projects net saving of $138 billion over 1st 10-year period and $1.2 trillion over the following 10 year period.

Has the CBO ever gotten an estimate right?

 

[A.Nonymous]

CBO projects net saving of $138 billion over 1st 10-year period and $1.2 trillion over the following 10 year period.

I find that extremely difficult to believe given that the business managers that I've spoken to said the opposite. These are people who are in the business of making money by providing healthcare services and they're telling me they are going to make less money under Obamacare.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Has the CBO ever gotten an estimate right?

Estimates are predictions, therefor not perfect.

How nonpartisan is the Congressional Budget Office? - Slate Magazine

"A study in the journal Polity examined the accuracy of economic forecasts made by the White House, the Federal Reserve, and the CBO between 1979 and 1997. During that time, the administration's forecasts were the least accurate and the CBO's were the most accurate. (The Fed forecasted inflation as accurately as the CBO but wasn't as good on gross-national-product growth and unemployment.) The study also found partisan bias in the White House forecasts: Republican administrations tend to exaggerate inflation while Democratic ones exaggerate unemployment. Neither of these tendencies shows up in the CBO's projections."

 

[Darkencypher]

The new law won't lower premiums though. The logic behind this is sheer insanity. It kind of goes like this.

1. There are a bunch of people who are uninsured.
2. They are uninsured because they either choose to not buy insurance or they can't afford it with the majority falling in the second category.
3. The solution is to pass a law requiring that everyone buy insurance and we'll subsidize those who can't afford to.

How does that make sense? Would it not make more sense to address the problem of why it costs so much more to provide healthcare in this country than it does elsewhere? That is the root of the problem. Of course that involves politicians being the pockets of various lobbies so we don't want to talk about that. I had several clients who were healthcare providers. None of them were fans of this bill as they all claimed it would drive their costs up. Who do you think they're going to pass those costs along to?

$$$$$ that's why it costs so much here. When corporations can buy our reps we get f***ed. Obamacare is a small step in the right direction that hopefully ends with universal healthcare!

 

[ylexot]

Estimates are predictions, therefor not perfect.

How nonpartisan is the Congressional Budget Office? - Slate Magazine

"A study in the journal Polity examined the accuracy of economic forecasts made by the White House, the Federal Reserve, and the CBO between 1979 and 1997. During that time, the administration's forecasts were the least accurate and the CBO's were the most accurate. (The Fed forecasted inflation as accurately as the CBO but wasn't as good on gross-national-product growth and unemployment.) The study also found partisan bias in the White House forecasts: Republican administrations tend to exaggerate inflation while Democratic ones exaggerate unemployment. Neither of these tendencies shows up in the CBO's projections."

They may be the most accurate government estimates, but they are still absolute garbage. I'll put it to you again...have they ever even been close?

 

[A.Nonymous]

More insured people means less cost just ignores the question of who is going to pay for those insured people.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Logically, creating more demand for a product of limited availability is going to drive prices up, not down.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I find it extremely hard to believe that the feds getting involved in anything is going to make it more cost efficient.

Shockingly enough, your federal government is probably better than a lot of other governments whos people have far far cheaper healthcare due to those governments involvement. Do not be so negative.
Yet as far as I know, this bill does not provide for extensive powers over the industry to reduce costs and cover everyone, unfortunately. My hope is that Obamacare will spur individual states into creating Universal Healthcare systems where the states themselves do their job of ensuring everyone has affordable care and that 20 cents out of every dollar isnt spent on health.

 

[ElasticNinja]

More insured people means less cost just ignores the question of who is going to pay for those insured people.

I would imagine themselves, their employers, and the government.

Logically, creating more demand for a product of limited availability is going to drive prices up, not down.

Im pretty sure most of these people ended up using these services anyway.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Shockingly enough, your federal government is probably better than a lot of other governments whos people have far far cheaper healthcare due to those governments involvement. Do not be so negative.
Yet as far as I know, this bill does not provide for extensive powers over the industry to reduce costs and cover everyone, unfortunately. My hope is that Obamacare will spur individual states into creating Universal Healthcare systems where the states themselves do their job of ensuring everyone has affordable care and that 20 cents out of every dollar isnt spent on health.

I've yet to come across a single thing the government manages that they actually manage well.