- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
What a mess.
It's a good example of why socialist command economies always fail. Note also that this absurd agglomeration is only about paying for healthcare. Imagine what it would look like if the stupid, incompetent, corrupt government were actually providing the healthcare.
If you look at the graphic, it's all questions. So how will those questions be answered? They will be answered by politics, and when decisions are made by politics, the politically powerful tend to get their way.
Ain't democracy grand?
One tiny little problem. Your single-payer health care scam violates the Tenth Amendment.Similar to when it laid out all the design considerations that would go into designing a single-payer model back in 2019 (Key Design Components and Considerations for Establishing a Single-Payer Health Care System | Debate Politics), the month the CBO has laid out some the key design considerations in putting together a federal public option:
A Public Option for Health Insurance in the Nongroup Marketplaces: Key Design Considerations and Implications
At a Glance Some Members of Congress have proposed introducing a federally administered health insurance plan, or “public option,” to compete with private plans in the nongroup marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office describes the key...www.cbo.gov
It's a good read, but for those short on time they've collected the questions into a succinct visual:
Handy, as always!
How would providers be encouraged to participate if not tied to federal programs? Well, through competitive fees for services, right? Coverage should be comparable to what the non-public plans out there are paying, otherwise providers will opt out if at all possible, which they do with Medicare and Medicaid in some cases already.
How would the PO set rates? Depends what the goal is. More generous rates makes establishing a broad participating provider network easy, but then the PO becomes more expensive to the consumer (which the public would find irksome, i.e. they'd ask what's the point of a PO if it's more expensive), or if public funding subsidizes this extra cost it makes better coverage cheaper than it could reasonably be for the non-PO carriers, maybe even leading to some adverse selection into the PO and undermining the real competitiveness of the marketplaces.
.I'm not sure I like the idea of only selectively offering a PO, based on some boardroom analysis of where it's deemed needed. I think there'd also be public backlash from "losing their PO" if someone at DHHS determined the other plans' prices had improved and thus handed them back to the other carriers.
One tiny little problem. Your single-payer health care scam violates the Tenth Amendment.
The federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it by the US Constitution. All other powers, unless specifically prohibited by the US Constitution, belong to the States exclusively. Like healthcare, education, social spending, etc.
That means Congress cannot enact a single-payer healthcare scam of any kind without usurping State authority and violating the US Constitution. Only the States have that constitutional authority, as Massachusetts demonstrated with RomneyCare.
What a mess.
It's a good example of why socialist command economies always fail. Note also that this absurd agglomeration is only about paying for healthcare. Imagine what it would look like if the stupid, incompetent, corrupt government were actually providing the healthcare.
If you look at the graphic, it's all questions. So how will those questions be answered? They will be answered by politics, and when decisions are made by politics, the politically powerful tend to get their way.
Ain't democracy grand?
One tiny little problem. Your single-payer health care scam violates the Tenth Amendment.
The federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it by the US Constitution. All other powers, unless specifically prohibited by the US Constitution, belong to the States exclusively. Like healthcare, education, social spending, etc.
That means Congress cannot enact a single-payer healthcare scam of any kind without usurping State authority and violating the US Constitution. Only the States have that constitutional authority, as Massachusetts demonstrated with RomneyCare.
Very true, illegally. The majority of States are still suing to overturn the illegal law, and they will not stop until the authority they had under the US Constitution is returned to them. Obama and his leftist minions illegally usurped the power of healthcare from the exclusive authority of the States, and they are going to take that authority back. It was never a power intended for the federal government.Here on Planet Earth the feds already sponsor health insurance plans, so that ship has sailed.
No, it was not. The unconstitutional MediCare/MedicAid programs were never challenged to the Supreme Court and continue to be illegally implemented by the federal government, just like Social Security, to this day.I think that claim was adjudicated back in the 1960’s.
These are interesting related points. On the one hand you could imagine a public option that's more or less left to its own devices after being created, allowed and encouraged to make business decisions like any other insurer and without any special privileges for being publicly-sponsored. Then its value is really just in injecting another option in the marketplace. And since marketplaces with more insurers competing tend to have lower premiums, that's a worthy approach.
On the other hand, arguably one of they key reasons we want a public option anyway is so that underserved marketplaces/rating areas will have a new insurer. But these are by definition areas that most other insurers have found to be a poor business decision, perhaps because they can't match the provider prices the dominant (lone?) incumbent insurer has achieved. When various marketplaces/rating areas become more attractive business then we see market entrants, as we're seeing in many places this year and next, and don't necessarily need to create a new public one just to have another seller. And a public option with no local market share and no special leverage to get lower provider rates isn't going to be any more effective at entering or competing in those places than any other insurer faced with the same incentives.
So if we really want a public option that's going to venture in and sell in places where most insurers won't, and otherwise change the game, it seems like it needs some sort of pricing advantage (rate-setting ability) relative to incumbents, which may in turn require some kind of stick to require provider participation. But then you don't necessarily even need a new public insurer if that's the key, you can just require/allow existing private insurers to sell products that get to tack onto government rate-setting in some way. That's the route Washington has gone with its "public option" plans and it's what was on the table in Connecticut's proposed public option a couple years back before the proposal was scrapped.
What a mess.
It's a good example of why socialist command economies always fail. Note also that this absurd agglomeration is only about paying for healthcare. Imagine what it would look like if the stupid, incompetent, corrupt government were actually providing the healthcare.
If you look at the graphic, it's all questions. So how will those questions be answered? They will be answered by politics, and when decisions are made by politics, the politically powerful tend to get their way.
Ain't democracy grand?
No, it was not. The unconstitutional MediCare/MedicAid programs were never challenged to the Supreme Court and continue to be illegally implemented by the federal government, just like Social Security, to this day.
The irony here is if the federal government had not created MediCare/MedicAid in the first place, there would never had been a need to the Affordable Healthcare Act. The federal government caused the sky-rocketing medical costs and healthcare prices by paying only pennies on the dollar for MediCare/MedicAid services. Insurance companies had to make up those costs somewhere, so naturally they charged the consumer.
Had there been no illegal MediCare/MedicAid, there would have been no sky-rocketing medical/healthcare costs.
Other countries do not limit the powers of their government. The US does.BS.
That did not happen in any country that adopted a national health insurance plan.
It could! That depends in part on the design decisions that get made about it.The government insurance plan would wind up with all the worst cases. Far from breaking even, it would incur huge debt that the tax payers would have to pay.
Explain what you mean/how it works to require/allow existing insurers to tack onto government rate setting?
I’d be curious to see how a PO with pricing advantage would work in an area with a dominant or lone incumbent.
Who's suing on Tenth Amendment grounds?Very true, illegally. The majority of States are still suing to overturn the illegal law, and they will not stop until the authority they had under the US Constitution is returned to them. Obama and his leftist minions illegally usurped the power of healthcare from the exclusive authority of the States, and they are going to take that authority back. It was never a power intended for the federal government.
The 27 States that are suing the federal government to abolish the illegal Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 and restore their constitutional authority, and the date they joined the suit, include:Who's suing on Tenth Amendment grounds?
The 27 States that are suing the federal government to abolish the illegal Affordable Healthcare Act of 2010 and restore their constitutional authority, and the date they joined the suit, include:
- Alabama - March 23, 2010
- Alaska - April 20, 2010
- Arizona - April 6, 2010
- Colorado - March 23, 2010
- Florida - March 23, 2010
- Georgia - April 13, 2010
- Idaho - March 23, 2010
- Indiana - May14, 2010
- Kansas - January 12, 2011
- Louisiana - March 23, 2010
- Maine - January 12, 2011
- Michigan - March 23, 2010
- Mississippi - May14, 2010
- Nebraska - March 23, 2010
- Nevada - May14, 2010
- North Dakota - April 5, 2010
- Ohio - January 11, 2011
- Oklahoma - January 7, 2011
- Pennsylvania - March 23, 2010
- South Carolina - March 23, 2010
- South Dakota - March 23, 2010
- Texas - March 23, 2010
- Utah - March 23, 2010
- Virginia - March 23, 2010
- Washington - March 23, 2010
- Wisconsin - January 3, 2011
- Wyoming - January 7, 2011
Incorrect. That was just one of multiple suits pending. The suit filed in US District Court in Texas in February 2018 is still pending.Looks like you're referencing a case that was decided by the SCOTUS nine years ago. Spoiler alert: the ACA survived.
20 States Sue Federal Government, Claiming Obamacare Is Unlawful
(Reuters) - A coalition of 20 U.S. states sued the federal government on Monday over Obamacare, claiming the law was no longer constitutional after the repeal last year of its requirement that people have health insurance or pay a fine.
...
“The U.S. Supreme Court already admitted that an individual mandate without a tax penalty is unconstitutional,” Paxton said in a statement. “With no remaining legitimate basis for the law, it is time that Americans are finally free from the stranglehold of Obamacare, once and for all,” he said.
The States will continue to bring the case back to the Supreme Court until the power that was illegally taken by Congress is finally returned. Congress simply does not have the constitutional authority to involve itself in our healthcare.
That would be judicial activism, and not allowed. They are to merely review the existing law and determine whether or not the federal government was granted the specific power under the US Constitution. Judicial activism is an impeachable offense.A ruling that the individual mandate penalty has to be larger than $0 would not establish that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to involve itself in health care. None of those states have even challenged the feds' authority to regulate and subsidize health care markets They challenged the individual mandate instead and lost nine years ago. Now they’re after the individual mandate again based on a technicality of tax law.
That would be judicial activism, and not allowed. They are to merely review the existing law and determine whether or not the federal government was granted the specific power under the US Constitution. Judicial activism is an impeachable offense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?