Unconstitutionalcare

[heyabbott]

The sooner we can get back to the cost of health care rising at five times the cost of living, the better.

The cost of health care will continue to rise as long as there is unfettered demand. The health care industry will continue to grow to meet that demand. The abstract solution is easy:

Controlling overall expenditure costs means either decreasing pay for each unit of patient care or decreasing the amount of care provided. The first would require that tuition to train for patient care professions be made more affordable and the cost of supplies decrease; the second would require rationing of health care access

To what extent do you think the cost of medicine/drugs is responsible for driving up health care costs? Lets take a look at the Pharm Industry.

 

[Birdscribe]

Ignoring Carlton's twisted glee at people being denied health care or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for said health care for the moment, Doc, I have a question.

I know this is a cardinal sin to the AMA, which likes to keep med-school admissions low, but to what extent would increasing the supply of doctors alleviate this problem?

 

[Bubbler]

I say we have no more threads devoted to this until it gets to the SCOTUS. These appeals court decisions mean less than nothing.

Yep.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Ignoring Carlton's twisted glee at people being denied health care or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for said health care for the moment, Doc, I have a question.

I know this is a cardinal sin to the AMA, which likes to keep med-school admissions low, but to what extent would increasing the supply of doctors alleviate this problem?

I'm not ignoring it. That's what he and his ilk are all about.

 

[Bob Cook]

The 11th Circuit Court ruling didn't say the law was unconstitutional. It actually decoupled the payment mandate and said THAT was unconstitutional. So the part that's OK is the coverage, but not the paying for it.

 

[YankeeFan]

Didn't this law pass without the standard language that would allow the rest of it to stand, even if one part was ruled unconstitutional?

 

[Birdscribe]

Ignoring Carlton's twisted glee at people being denied health care or being forced into bankruptcy to pay for said health care for the moment, Doc, I have a question.

I know this is a cardinal sin to the AMA, which likes to keep med-school admissions low, but to what extent would increasing the supply of doctors alleviate this problem?

I'm not ignoring it. That's what he and his ilk are all about.

No argument here, TSP. Aside from pointing that obvious and disturbing fact out, I honestly wanted to get DocT's take on this. I read an interview with a respected money manager in SmartMoney a while back who brought this up. It's been on my mind ever since.

 

[JonnyD]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?

 

[HejiraHenry]

Didn't this law pass without the standard language that would allow the rest of it to stand, even if one part was ruled unconstitutional?

Supposedly, although somewhere around page 190-something of today's opinion the appellate court suggests their decision might leave the rest of the law in effect.

 

[YankeeFan]

Didn't this law pass without the standard language that would allow the rest of it to stand, even if one part was ruled unconstitutional?

Supposedly, although somewhere around page 190-something of today's opinion the appellate court suggests their decision might leave the rest of the law in effect.

I don't get how this could be true. (Not questioning you, but that's not how it was described when it passed.)

Maybe someone else can give us some more info.

 

[CarltonBanks]

I thought this was different because this was the first time a Democrat deemed the individual mandate unconstitutional. And, JohnnyD, that is my question. Yes, our health care coverage system is a mess and, yes, something needs to be done. But it is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing. This law is a fiasco. For all the talk of bipartisianship when Obama took office, this was the biggest indication that he was just blowing smoke. Even recently the CBO found another $50 billion annually in hidden costs. We simply cannot afford this law, and the law does not even come close to doing what liberals want. All this does is tell John Q. Taxpayer he HAS to buy health insurance. How is this a good law?

 

[LongTimeListener]

Where are you seeing that a "Democrat" deemed it unconstitutional? The opinion was jointly written by an H.W. appointee and a Clinton appointee; not sure either one of those two operates under an (R) or a (D).

As for the rest: You've made your opinion known about a thousand times on the plan. Dredging it up again is what moves threads like these from legitimate news discussions to tit-for-tat personal politics.