0
Gravitymaster

Will Obamacare be Ruled to be Constitutional?

By Gravitymaster, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
I never said the US is the "best" because it's more expensive. I merewly said the if one wants to decrease the cost of healthcare, either quality or availability must suffer. Perhaps it's what you wish I wrote, but I did not. If you can tell me how to get cheap, high quality healthcare available on demand I'll nominate you for a Nobel Peace Prize, a Nobel medicine Prize and an Economics Prize in honor of Nobel. Because noboy's neen able to do it.

I have not yet looked at Romneycare. I'll comment when I do.

From the stats you posted it sounds like roughly 1/4 were from unmanageable medical bills while other were people dealing with the sequallae of injury. So the law does nothing about 75% of the problem. (Note: there is insurance available for loss of income due to disability, capped at about 80% of wages).

[Quote]The more expensive it becomes, the more young gets out...thus a non-ending vicious cycle. [B]ACA works to be a backstop against this.

Then you wrote:
[Quote]This whole notion of "taking away individual freedom", ... just buzzwords

So, locking people into something they cannot escape is not an abrogation of freedom to you? I hate to break it to you, but "backstop" means "no escape." And "no escape" and "freedom" are anathema. Unless there's some other type of backstop that isn't designed to trap things and prevent their movement.

But here's the question again: why do you favorthe well subsidizing the ill? Can you at least admit that people who take care of themselves get less bang for their buck that those who do not

Finally - how do you think this will lower costs? It doesn't. It spreads the cost and doesn't lower it. And makes illness less expensive for the sufferer, removing much of the disincentive for it. In fact, won't it just increase costs immediately by getting a lot more treatment for those with chronic conditions?

So, to wrap up:
(1) How does a "backstop" not eliminate "freedom?";
(2) How can healthcare be made high quality, inexpensive and available on demand; and
(3) How is healthcare to be made less expensive by charging more to the healthy and less to the unhealthy?


And re; constitutionality? If the federal government is one of limited powers then it is unconstitutional. If the powers are unlimited. Then this is fine.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
EMTALA wasn't mentioned by name. But it was mentioned. When the people going to the emergency room and not paying are discussed they are talking about EMTALA.

I'm arguing that the effects of EMTALA are being used as a justification for this policy. Kinda like justifying arms control because of the guns the government gave to drug cartels.

[Reply]How do you suggest an ER/trauma center should respond to a seriously ill or injured patient who is brought in without ID, insurance cards, a checkbook, or other proof that they will be able to pay?



Let the government pay for it. Don't make the population buy into a program to do it. The government could just as easily levy a 10% income tax and do it. That's Constituional. Or staff government hospitals for such things. Hell, let the government pay for it. But make us all buy private insurance???

[Reply]However, people also have a right to legal representation, and if they cannot afford such representation it is provided for them, and I pay for it despite the fact that I would not qualify for free legal representation myself.



True. And if the government wanted to make me sick I'd think it fair that the government would pay to make me well if I couldn't afford to do it myself. The government appoints counsel in criminal matters when it comes after someone. But for civil matters? Nope. On your own.

So I don't have a problem with funding people who want to maintain freedom from a government trying to take it. It's a fine line, but the line is distinct, I think. Much like I have little problem with funding the VA.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ShcShc11    0

ShcShc11
Quote

Quote

lawrocket, I like the fact that you express your ideas, but you keep thinking this argument in such an abstract theoretical manner.



He's a lawyer and the topic is constitutionality. Of course it's going to be abstract and theoretical. Not emotional. As it should be.



Theoretical in the sense that it has no reality/real-life results behind it. This has nothing to do with emotional, but rather practicality.

If ACA is bound to be inefficient and "debt would explode", then tell me a real-life example of this happening. It's definitely not happening in Massachusetts- the cost were lower than predicted.

And there's a reason to it, I don't think people sufficiently understands the reasoning on it nor do they understand how it works. They don't bother to look at the CBO numbers (they can't even read it the Financial numbers!), nor at the Romneycare conclusions, etc...

Its all theory created by connection two random dots and some imagination and/or articles riddled with hypothetical situations based on faulty comparisons

This happens pretty much all the time in other debates like economics: (a la Austrian Economics comparing Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic hyperinflations).


Hugs and Cheers!
Shc

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ShcShc11    0

ShcShc11
Quote

I never said the US is the "best" because it's more expensive.



Fair enough.


Quote

I merewly said the if one wants to decrease the cost of healthcare, either quality or availability must suffer.

Perhaps it's what you wish I wrote, but I did not. If you can tell me how to get cheap, high quality healthcare



I can tell you that there are alternatives (which have already been proposed) that are more efficient than the pre-2010 U.S Health Care system.

A system that essentially takes 18% of the country's GDP and constantly ranked in the lower-bracket in terms of quality isin't a system that people should keep ...on top of that, a good 50 million is uninsured.


Quote

But here's the question again: why do you favorthe well subsidizing the ill?



Understand that this isin't about subsidizing the ill. It is about making the economic-side of health care work.


It brings me to your next point:
Quote

So, locking people into something they cannot escape is not an abrogation of freedom to you? I hate to break it to you, but "backstop" means "no escape." And "no escape" and "freedom" are anathema. Unless there's some other type of backstop that isn't designed to trap things and prevent their movement.



In the pre-2010 health care system, the more people opted out of health care, the more expensive the insurance got. The more expensive it got, the more people had no choice but to get out of it causing the price to rise. This is what happened in New Hamphshire. This is why the State of New York wanted to reform it since the 1990s...this is why the Heritage (Republicans) proposed in 1994 what is now ObamaRomneyCare.

This is why insurance companies like Aetna doesn't have much choice, but to find ways to kick out the ones who are ill. Not necessarily because of greed, but the system can't work without it.

Your frame of mind is focused on the notions of "subsidizing"/"socializing healthcare" instead of looking at the system and telling yourself: "Was the old system working?" Of course not. The economics-side did not work. The old system needed to be fixed in order for the privatized system to work properly.





Hugs & Cheers!
Shc

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kallend    2,027

kallend
Quote

I see something very interesting. Solicitor General Donald Virelli made a comment that I predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

According to the article, "Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs." Virelli responded:

Quote

"I think it's completely different," said Verrilli, arguing that when it comes to health care, those who don't buy it and get sick can get emergency room care, an expensive option effectively subsidized by their insurance-buying fellow citizens.



Why do people go to the emergency room? Because of EMTALA, which was passed in 1986. I wrote about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

Basically, the reason why the need for socialized healthcare exists, says the Solicitor General, is because too many people are getting a free ride. Of course, this free ride has only existed for 25 years! Congress mandated that ERs treat everyone without regard to ability to pay. Therefore, people go into ERs for free care.

The government's solution is not to repeal EMTALA. The government's solution is to force all people to buy a private product. the road to socialized healthcare is paved with creating lousy policies that the government must then fix.

I've perused quite a few amicus briefs and EMTALA isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering if I'm the only person thinking of this.



Right, what we need is Boehnercare: "Can't pay, then go away and die".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

marks2065    0

marks2065
Quote

Quote

I see something very interesting. Solicitor General Donald Virelli made a comment that I predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

According to the article, "Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs." Virelli responded:

Quote

"I think it's completely different," said Verrilli, arguing that when it comes to health care, those who don't buy it and get sick can get emergency room care, an expensive option effectively subsidized by their insurance-buying fellow citizens.



Why do people go to the emergency room? Because of EMTALA, which was passed in 1986. I wrote about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

Basically, the reason why the need for socialized healthcare exists, says the Solicitor General, is because too many people are getting a free ride. Of course, this free ride has only existed for 25 years! Congress mandated that ERs treat everyone without regard to ability to pay. Therefore, people go into ERs for free care.

The government's solution is not to repeal EMTALA. The government's solution is to force all people to buy a private product. the road to socialized healthcare is paved with creating lousy policies that the government must then fix.

I've perused quite a few amicus briefs and EMTALA isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering if I'm the only person thinking of this.



Right, what we need is Boehnercare: "Can't pay, then go away and die".



How about they either buy insurance or pay the bill themselves? garnish their wages untill the bill is paid or they die. lets start making people accountable for their actions.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy9o8    2

Andy9o8
Quote

I found it interesting that the Court is looking at and considering the same argument Obama made against the mandate when running against Hillary.

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/supreme-irony-obamacare.html



well, that's the difference between caring about policy and caring about partisan politics. You're focusing on partisan politics.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravitymaster    0

Gravitymaster
Quote

Quote

I found it interesting that the Court is looking at and considering the same argument Obama made against the mandate when running against Hillary.

http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/supreme-irony-obamacare.html



well, that's the difference between caring about policy and caring about partisan politics. You're focusing on partisan politics.



No, I'm focusing on the irony that Obama is having his argument against the mandate used against him. It may be that it's partisan politics but that's just a result of the observation, not the intent.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
[Reply]I can tell you that there are alternatives (which have already been proposed) that are more efficient than the pre-2010 U.S Health Care system



I understand that. But the question is, "can you tell me how to make a system that is less expensive and is neither rationed nor lower quality?" You aren't answering it. (Note: I understand that the healthcare system in the US is rationed by who can afford it - plastic surgery being the easiest example of this).

[Reply]A system that essentially takes 18% of the country's GDP and constantly ranked in the lower-bracket in terms of quality isin't a system that people should keep



The ACA doesn't change this. The ACA shifts the cost of this system to people who aren't paying into it now. You understand that. You do! I pointed out that the ACA does nothing but make it easier for the ill to get more healthcare because it makes the well pay for it, too. You are understanding it but you aren't acknowledging it.

[Reply]Understand that this isin't about subsidizing the ill. It is about making the economic-side of health care work.



By subsidizing the ill and forcing others to pay for healthcare they don't need. "The Patriot Act isn't about warrantless searches. It's about the safety of our citizens." By warrantless searches. Cut the crap. You're better than that.

Note - I've alrewady explained to you the inefficiencies of a commons. Making it more common doesn't make it more efficient. Just less expensive for those who use it most (think of the honeless guys who call ambulances twice a day. Others pay for it - not them.) Maybe you view it differently from me, but others bearing the cost encourages waste.

The most efficient way to spend money is a person spending his/her money on hiself/herself.
Least efficient is spending someone else's money on someone else.
Between the two is spending your own money on someone else (the cheapest, actually, but inefficient) and spending someone else's money on yourself (the most expensive, but at least it's being spent on what you need/want)

This proposal means spending other people's money on yourself. Tell me how a person with access to other people's money spends less that that person would if it was his/her own money. Ot doesn't happen. With healthcare this way, they can afford to spend a lot more. Which will increase costs unless it is rationed or unless quality goes down.

Get it?

[Reply]Your frame of mind is focused on the notions of "subsidizing"/"socializing healthcare" instead of looking at the system and telling yourself: "Was the old system working?" Of course not.



These are justifications for socialism. They are justifications for forcing people to buy a private product. Justifications for the backstop. You are moving from what the effect is to the reasons why.

I understand why ACA does what it does.

Note: it never works in argument to tell someone "you need to understand." It can't't be done without speaking down to people. And often times we DO understand exactly what we you are saying. I understand why it was done. It comes off as condescending.
"You have to understand why police interrogate minors for 18 hours without a lawyer or parents. They wouldn't get a confession if they didn't"
"You have to understand why they are being held in Gitmo. Trying them would be too dangerous - they might not be convicted."
"You have to understand why he doesn't like kids with hoodies."
"You have to understand why I cheated on you. It isn't about you."



But you have failed to address three very specific questions I've asked that are threshhol issues.

I've demonstrated not only that there are freedom issues but that you know it (you call it a "backstop") but it directly counters your assertion that there is no freedom issue. And you were flippant and dismissive about it. While I respect and appreciate the figures that you put out there, saying "it works" does not mean that freedoms are being lost. Really - we heard the same thing from Bush and Cheney about the Patriot Act, justifying what they were doing and minimizing the loss of freedoms as just lefty spin from people who want to see American destroyed and our citizens killed.

And you are correct - I'm not focusing on whether the system is working. I'm focusing on the inequities, Constitutionality, abrogations of freedoms, and long-term inefficiency of a system that forces the healthy to provide spending money for the ill. Truly these are thought exercises.

But you haven't answered the questions.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites