Unconstitutionalcare

[YankeeFan]

I'm more down with a sin tax than some monolithic insurance company telling people what they can or can't eat. That's one slippery slope I want no part of.

Well, they wouldn't tell you what you could or couldn't eat. You'd just pay more in insurance rates for the privilege.

It's not that big a difference, except that if I have one Big Mac a month, I'm not subsidizing the person who eats there every day.

 

[J Staley]

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be heck to pay.

I agree with you about people wanting to treat everything with a pill rather than using preventative techniques such as diet and exercise, that is a problem.

That's why it's important for people to understand, from an early age, the importance of maintaining health -- unless of course it's the government trying to tell you what to do, right?

I'm healthy and rarely go to the doctor. And I'll admit that it doesn't feel right for me to pay the healthcare costs of those that visit doctors regularly. But if the alternative is having a large group of people that can't reasonably get heath care, I guess I'll pull up my bootstraps.

The thinking you display in this post is a good example of why I can't relate to Republican logic sometimes. You all love to preach about the virtues of liberty, but it only seems to apply to those that make the "correct" decisions.

 

[Bubbler]

The costs themselves have to be addressed too, as in, health providers, doctors, etc., need to stop gouging the ever-living fork out of everyone for the most basic services.

I had a consult with my heart doctor a few months ago. I literally talked to him for 30 seconds. The pre-insured bill was something like $320. That's total insanity.

There are hospitals that charge $50 for patients to get an extra blanket.

Horseshirt gouging and profiteering drives up costs too. I don't hear much of anything that is addressing that aspect of health costs.

But, a lot of that is making up for other areas where they got screwed. Where they didn't get reimbursed at the proper rate.

So, like a guy padding his expense report with an extra cab ride to make up for not getting reimbursed for a meal, you pay more for certain items.

Reimbursed at what proper rate? That's circular logic. I get what you're saying, but part of the problem is their rate.

It's a self-fulfilling system. Charge too much for services, some people can't pay, pass the higher costs on to those who can. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Maybe, just maybe, they're charging too damn much to begin with.

 

[JonnyD]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

How is it different. The government is telling people that they *must* buy something from private companies. If the government wants to run health care, the government should run health care. That'd be a great way to solve the problem.

Funneling this "tax" through corrupt corporations is the worst of all possible solutions. You are right, though: This is a massive tax increase, levied regressively on middle-class Americans who will see their premiums skyrocket, payable directly to private corporations. Remind me again why liberals are excited about it?

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the government stepping into the field of health care. I'm questioning the legitimacy of *this* specific plan, which is the most appallingly conservative national health care plan ever taken seriously.

 

[Bubbler]

I'm more down with a sin tax than some monolithic insurance company telling people what they can or can't eat. That's one slippery slope I want no part of.

Well, they wouldn't tell you what you could or couldn't eat. You'd just pay more in insurance rates for the privilege.

So, in other words, they're telling you what you eat.

That's like telling someone in a prison camp, "You're totally free to go at any time you wish, but we'll shoot you if you cross that line. But you are free to go when you want!"

 

[Azrael]

What's wrong with the systems in Germany or Switzerland?

Nothing.

 

[Azrael]

German workers pay a tax to get out of the universal health care and get private insurance. Yeah, that's really something I want to deal with. Our system might not be great, but at least it's not government-run. I pray it stays that way.

Do you have a citation for that?

 

[Dick Whitman]

No one "charges too much" for anything.

You are not going to change the law of supply-and-demand. It is as true as 2+2=4.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The mandate is not unconstitutional, and it's going to be a 7-2 vote when it gets to the Supreme Court. Book it.

It's a tax. Obama didn't call it a tax because that's politically radioactive, but it's a tax. They could have arranged it so that you pay a health insurance tax, and you get a tax credit when you purchase it. Instead, they configured it this way so they could avoid calling it a tax. But the result is exactly the same.

I don't think the penalty is big enough, but other than that, the outcry against the mandate by conservatives has baffled me. You have thousands upon thousands of 20-somethings opting out of the market, thereby raising the prices of insurance for everyone else. There is a huge adverse selection problem with insurance, a true market failure that we all pay for, and the mandate corrects it.

This is not the same, JonnyD, as "telling people that they have to take three flights a year." This was a serious market failure that all economists, from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman and everyone in between, recognize as legitimate.

How is it different. The government is telling people that they *must* buy something from private companies.

No they aren't. You can opt out. You just have to then pay the tax penalty.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Saw the subject line. Bet myself a million bucks I knew who started the thread. Clicking to see confirmed I won. And lost.

 

[JonnyD]

No they aren't. You can opt out. You just have to then pay the tax penalty.

And you can shoot someone in the face, you just have to pay the jail penalty.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

No one "charges too much" for anything.

You are not going to change the law of supply-and-demand. It is as true as 2+2=4.

Gasoline, utilities, cable.

Next.