- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Justice Scalia:
By the way, I don't agree with you that the relevant market here is health care. You're not regulating health care. You're regulating insurance. It's the insurance market that you're addressing and you're saying that some people who are not in it must be in it, and that's - - that's different from regulating in any manner commerce that already exists out there.
From the day 2 arguements that I've been reading...
I so agree. Insurance IS its own market seperate from health care. To use an example that others have tried to use...improperly mind you...car insurance. (yeah...couldn't help but throw that in your faces) There is also house insurance, fire insurance etc etc.
How do you "increase the supply of doctors" if only so many people want to become doctors?
I've said this a few times, but the usual suspects keep equating the two.
Not hard. Put a limit on how many licenses are issued per year.
Kind of nice to hear someone in authority say the same thing huh?
(by authority I'm talking about someone that can actually decide on this issue)
I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:
Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage.
How does that increase the supply of doctors?
Just a couple of articles for you to read Adam.
France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com
Health care in France: facing hard choices
Frances system is going broke. And they are desperately trying to find ways like copays, an American Insurance thing BTW, to ease their problems in budgetary shortfalls. Yet proponents like you want to run to these failing systems, even as they are trying to run away from them.
j-mac
Increase the limit. Currently from what I have heard they have a limit on how many licenses they issue. No I have no proof of it but it wouldn't surprise me. I have heard of waiting lists to get licenses.
If country X has outpatient care that costs $7, and our country has outpatient care that costs $700, entitling wveryone to outpatient in country X is going to be 100 times easier in country X. In other words, maybe the care was always cheaper there in the first place.
What's wrong is that we DO get it (one way or another) whether we pay for it or not. Thus a main feature of this problem includes out refusal to refuse.
Maybe and maybe not, but either way, you have to ask why? If something is cheaper there, the question not being answered is why?
Yes, the answer is innovation, and R&D costs added into the American system, that we do not pass along when sharing life saving treatments.
j-mac
I disagree. I think the obvious best choice is:
Option 3: establish a French-style single payer system with universal coverage. The government specifies which procedures are covered, how much they will cost, and how much will be paid to providers. The plan covers the vast majority of normal medical care but does not cover cosmetic and other elective surgery, nor does it cover every imagineable end-of-life treatment. If people want coverage for elective procedures and/or coverage for extraordinary end of life treatments they can purchase private insurance to cover those eventualities.
I don't see how else we can deal with the fact that our doctors are grossly overpaid relative to doctors in other countries, or the fact that we grossly overpay for medications relative to other countries, or the fact that our hospital care is grossly overpriced relative to other countries.
So it isn't unlimited medical care for everyone, but it is good medical care for everyone, and if it's not good enough then you have the option of paying extra.
From the day 2 arguements that I've been reading...
I so agree. Insurance IS its own market seperate from health care. To use an example that others have tried to use...improperly mind you...car insurance. (yeah...couldn't help but throw that in your faces) There is also house insurance, fire insurance etc etc.
Just a couple of articles for you to read Adam.
France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com
Health care in France: facing hard choices
Frances system is going broke. And they are desperately trying to find ways like copays, an American Insurance thing BTW, to ease their problems in budgetary shortfalls. Yet proponents like you want to run to these failing systems, even as they are trying to run away from them.
j-mac
How many times do you have to be told that this is a free market economy, and it's not up to you to decide how much people get paid. If it were, I'd immediately decide you're overpaid and cut your pay in half and give it to myself, since I'm underpaid.
No, it isn't separate from health care because people who do not have health insurance have a substantial effect on the cost of everyone else's health insurance. Same reason that auto insurance is mandatory and why many states have mandatory no fault insurance.
You can not state where the Constitution gives the fed powers you 'feel' it should have, so you say others are dodging, and need to focus? Get a grip.
I have put up the long accepted definition of judicial activism, that you ignore it because it does not fit your needs/beliefs is your own issue.
I would not be surprised if the mandate is found unconstitutional on more like a 7-2 vote. Tossing out the entire act may be closer.
Odd, the NPR show today has me beliving they will not interfere with congress and will not strike the mandate down. And certainly would not strike down the centerpiece of a democratic presidents term, on a party-line vote.
The basic case the panel made was that the commerce clause is sufficiently broad enough, that if it's fairly well defined how the mandate is tied to regulation (it appears to be), and is driven by some limiting principle(s), then the court shouldn't interefere. They believed Roberts will clearly state how this power to mandate is limited by a/b/c and thus not some widepread green light on a very wide interpretation in every other situation...and then not rule it unconstitutional.
They said more or less the same on the eve of the Bush v. Gore decision -- i.e., the court would not "interfere" with "Florida law."
I don't think that's true. Not that you can't link someone saying it is true, just as I can link someone saying it isn't so. But we have a lot of that work done at Univeristies here. And other countries do infact innovate and do R&D. So, I doubt that is the cause.
tossing out the entire law would be judicial activism...
Law Professor Jonathan Turley marvels at the mistake made by the socialists when they failed to include a severability clause in Obamacare - even as he wondered if it might have been part of a game of chicken.
TURLEY: Well, first of all, it was a colossal mistake not to have a severability clause in this legislation. It’s a standard clause in bills. It is not clear why it was kept out. Some people say it was a blunder. Other suggests and I know you know, there’s some suspicion that it might be a sort of game of chicken, that they wanted to make clear, if you take out the individual mandate, you are risking the entire bill to sort of give these judges a bit of sticker shock.
No Severability Clause in Obamacare: Mistake or Socialist Plot? | WRKO.com
Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Won't Read Health Care Law
and the right keeps wronging
Now wait, I think you are confusing things. You were responding to the hypothesis about country X having a $7 cost for the same thing we pay $700 for. You seem to be answering only about our own costs. And although Universities do research, it is nothing compared to the private market.
j-mac
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?