Billy the Kid
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,449
- Reaction score
- 563
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Apparently in this case they decided that Filburn had gone was too far.
There isn't going to be any single payer system. That was killed long ago.
I doubt people are going to be very enthusiastic about another major tax and spend program until we do something significant about the current debt situation, which will undoubtedly turn critical again after the election.No it's not, it's really inevitable if this bill gets struck down. The status-quo can't last forever, and change is needed.
I doubt people are going to be very enthusiastic about another major tax and spend program until we do something significant about the current debt situation, which will undoubtedly turn critical again after the election.
Not really, we could see a slow-growth expansion of the two-tier system and still provide "universal coverage" without going single payer. Single-payer couldn't even pass with heavy house and senate Democrat majorities and a Democratic president with health care reform his primary goal.It is still inevitable.
It is fantastic to hear this. It would be even better if it's not a 5-4 Decision to strike the mandate, but I don't think that's going to be likely.
They really did do that. I have to admit I was somewhat shocked at that.The way the lib judges coached the attorney for the government, picked him up when he fell down and threw him softball questions I think a 5-4 decision is a forgone conclusion.
When democrats manage to get that once-in-a-generation supermajority in the house and senate and whitehouse and own the courts, maybe. But I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.It is still inevitable.
No it's not, it's really inevitable if this bill gets struck down. The status-quo can't last forever, and change is needed.
Lack of money is but a mere nuisance to the government.that is true. but I find your belief that "change" means "only in the direction of increased government control" interesting.
given that in about 10 years we will no longer be able to fund social security and medicare, where do you imagine we are going to get the money to fund UHC?
Lack of money is but a mere nuisance to the government.
Ok, seriously, I believe single-payer is an inevitability, also. Don't mistake that as meaning it would be the best option. I didn't say that. I mean the option that I believe will happen.
I would (hope?) think that single-payer would eliminate medicare, so that would account for part of the funding, but not all of it. But, as I type this another thought jumps in my head that kind of scares me. We might end up with both. Government is loathe to eliminate ANY program, ever, and we usually end up with needless duplication.
step one is to uncouple health insurance coverage from employment.
then we can consider how many for-profit middlemen we really need between the patient and the healthcare solution.
My point was semi-facetious, but in all seriousness I'm not suggesting we do. I am suggesting that saying we can't buy something if we don't have the money would mean more if we didn't have such a history of government deficits and debt. We're obviously not being fiscally responsible as it is...... i will admit, i'm not even sure where to go with this. the inability to actually afford something doesn't mean we can't buy it....
are you suggesting we will simply print the money, and accept the destruction of wealth inherent in high inflation?
You're presuming opinions never change. If the mandate is struck down... as I think it should be, btw... then pretty much nothing changes. If pretty much nothing changes then people will continue to feel stuck. I'm not sure that that "hair-thin" majority was accurately representative of the population as a whole. I believe public sentiment will increase over time and our legislators will feel they have no other choice, regardless how they personally believe.Democrats barely pushed through Obamacare with a supermajority in the Senate, ownership of the House, and the White House. It was a hair-thin vote, they were forced to resort to parliamentary tricks, and many were subsequently relieved of the burden of public service by that a public no longer interested in their services.
There is simply no way UHC passes. You may get universal subsidization of health insurance in the form of refundable tax credits a'la the Ryan Plan. But Obamacare pretty much established the left lateral limit for the politically possible health care reform.
My point was semi-facetious, but in all seriousness I'm not suggesting we do. I am suggesting that saying we can't buy something if we don't have the money would mean more if we didn't have such a history of government deficits and debt. We're obviously not being fiscally responsible as it is.
You're presuming opinions never change. If the mandate is struck down... as I think it should be, btw... then pretty much nothing changes. If pretty much nothing changes then people will continue to feel stuck. I'm not sure that that "hair-thin" majority was accurately representative of the population as a whole. I believe public sentiment will increase over time and our legislators will feel they have no other choice, regardless how they personally believe.
I don't disagree with the part in red, but part of the reason health costs are so high now is to cover people who currently can't and/or don't pay their bills. How would this change for the better?Passing the Affordable Health Care Act is anything but fiscally responsible.
Second, there are heavy clamps on competition in insurance. Due to state licensing and restrictions on licensing and selling, companies have increased costs on a state by state basis. There also is decreased competition because of this cost, not to mention the extra red tape.
The solutions are basic and will only work slowly. Insurance needs to be severed from employment, the tax breaks inherent in group insurance need to phased out OR passed along to individual consumers. Health Insurance should not cover basic health maintenance. It should be for catastrophic coverage, hospital stays, surgery etc etc. Not for a checkup. If people had to start paying cash for basic procedures, you can bet that cost would be watched more closely. High risk pools that are state regulated could be created but the unfortunate fact is that most people with those conditions cannot afford what their actual cost should be. We do need a solution for that. But I dont think the current law does this in the right way.
There are a number of side avenues as well: HSAs, very basic coverage for younger people, cash only clinics that do very basic health maintenance etc. All of which would be illegal under AHCA. Yet those kinds of things do drive costs down and let people be independent of expensive health insurance if they are already healthy.
I don't disagree with the part in red, but part of the reason health costs are so high now is to cover people who currently can't and/or don't pay their bills. How would this change for the better?
I don't disagree with the part in red, but part of the reason health costs are so high now is to cover people who currently can't and/or don't pay their bills. How would this change for the better?
What percent of health care spending in the U.S. in not reimbursed because of people not having insurance?
Uninsured Americans stick hospitals with as much as $49 billion in unpaid bills a year, according to a government study released Tuesday as the Obama administration prepared to defend its healthcare law in court.
Would the fine from the mandate (i.e.: not purchasing insurance) be cheaper for someone with an incredibly expensive condition such as cancer? Would they then be entitled to the same treatment because they paid their fine? They did "participate" in the system one way or another, after all. If I'm understanding this correctly, for some it may be a wise decision to not have insurance.I see it talked to "full hospital bills". So if a hospital charges an insurance company $10 for a service but an individual walking in without insurance $50 that would account for nearly all of these "costs" you describe.
It seems that the basis for the mandate is a number that is pretty hard to get our arms around. Let's remember that health care is a $2.7 trillion industry, so even the number mentioned would only be 2% of total costs. Also remember that illegal immigrants that go to the hospital could still fall into this category, as well as people who will still not sign up for insurance even with the mandate.
Would the fine from the mandate (i.e.: not purchasing insurance) be cheaper for someone with an incredibly expensive condition such as cancer? Would they then be entitled to the same treatment because they paid their fine? They did "participate" in the system one way or another, after all. If I'm understanding this correctly, for some it may be a wise decision to not have insurance.
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?