Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[Gwynplaine]

The SCOTUS hearings ended today and now they will write their decisions. The public won't get the final results until June, so now the waiting begins. You can listen to the recordings or view the transcripts here:

Day 3 part1: Is the law severable from the mandate?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...rgument=11-393

Day 3 part2: Does the law's requirements for Medicaid funding overtake power from states?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...rgument=11-400

I don't think educated guesses about the justices ruling has changed much since before the hearings. It still seems likely there will be a 5-4 split for or against with Kennedy breaking the tie.

It did seem like there was a lot of opposition to the idea the law isn't severable. So if it were ruled unconstitutional somehow, I feel like they would still keep a majority of the rest. There's a lot of variety for how the final decision could take form it seems to me.

Here's an interesting article on severability from Heartland.org:
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...vidual-mandate

But the lack of a severability clause wouldn’t necessarily result in the overrule the rest of the legislation, which mostly have to do with spending and rationing — the expansion of Medicaid, Medicare cuts, and sweeping regulatory authority — and isn’t wrapped up in the mandate. This has been the Court’s approach to other issues, such as the recent Sarbanes-Oxley ruling, another law which lacked a severability clause, where they invalidated a portion of the law and allowed the rest to stand.


Some things that the Court would likely leave unaffected would include the expansion of Medicaid, reporting obligations for businesses and hospitals, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, funds for “family planning,” expansion of state aging and disability resource centers, expanded funding for prevention programs and workplace education, reforms to inpatient rehabilitation and hospices, the addition of value-based payments for physicians and hospitals, and many provisions relating to Medicare services in rural areas… And that’s just for starters.

[Sepukku]

"What we've heard over the last few days is a growing concern from our Supreme Court justices about, perhaps, the federal government has gone too far at the expense of individual liberty"

In other news, it is important for people to have liberty. They must have the freedom to die if they are unable to afford ongoing medical care.

Not sure if sarcastic or not.....

And lol @ Patriot Act comparison. Very valid point too, although I believe the reason why one's cool and the other isn't is cause one was drafted for a white, evangelical Texan and the other was drafted for a young, charismatic black guy.

[Sepukku]

Read on Time.com that Obama Admin lawyers argued that if the individual mandate is struck down, only strike down pre-existing conditions in conjunction with it. Despite my own personal interests in keeping the latter, they're basically admitting the two go hand in hand (for the reasons stated here) and in the seemingly likely event Kennedy rules with the Republicans, I'm fucked.

Public suicide as an act of political demonstration (as opposed to traditionally being an act of depression) might make these 600 egg heads in Washington get their acts together and truly start caring for the 295 million average Americans. Could you imagine if we had people care that much in this country?

[archibaldcrane]

Which version of the medical birth lottery did you lose, Seppuku?

[Yugl]

Not sure if sarcastic or not.....

And lol @ Patriot Act comparison. Very valid point too, although I believe the reason why one's cool and the other isn't is cause one was drafted for a white, evangelical Texan and the other was drafted for a young, charismatic black guy.

Hitler was charismatic and look where he led Germany. We can't risk listening to the words of someone who follows him so closely. Also, Hitler was black. Within his soul. And soul is how people describe black entertainment.

[Darus Grey]

Which version of the medical birth lottery did you lose, Seppuku?

Would suck, frankly that provision is the only thing keeping me in this country. If it gets struck down I literally have no choice but to expatriate to be able to have affordable care and the ability to run my own company once I finally stop attending school and am no longer on my student plan.

I'm frankly sick of being a slave to the insurance industry, and having to shape and limit my life choices around my health coverage.

[Gwynplaine]

I've yet to hear of a decent answer as to why we don't have a private police force/fire department/complete educational system/etc. Looking at health care through that lense makes as much sense to me as the rest of those.

I don't want the government to subsidize private health insurance either, but I do want free/sufficiently cheap, universal coverage. I'd rather it come at a tax dollar.

If you want cheap, as-close-to-universal-as-is-feasible insurance then a true free market is what you want. There's a good reason there's no "shoe crisis" or a "computer access crisis" or "calculator crisis". Private companies provide those things remarkably well with vast amounts of unique choices and competition. Dark Age Kings of Europe couldn't have dreamed of the kind of luxury we consider tacky in our time. If given some cheesy calculator fridge magnet as a promotional item most people would chuck it into a closet or the back of their car.

Would you say we have "universal" access to shoes and calculators and cellphones? No. But about as damned close as is realistically possible. I imagine it's possible but I've yet to meet anyone who lacks shoes. Without any government "shoe policy" or Federal Shoe Administration etc.

I don't know what police service has to do with anything, no one brought that up. I'm guessing you think I'm some kind of anarchist or something but that's not the case. The police are a vitally important part of government that shouldn't be, and can't successfully be done in a market. The police are extremely different from services like insurance, health care, and education.

[Gwynplaine]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ers-didnt-pay/

The county does not have a county-wide firefighting service, but South Fulton offers fire coverage to rural residents for a fee.
“We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription (to rural residents). If they choose not to, we can’t make them,” he said.

http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=46801

Trying to play that story off as though it's some kind of failure of a private free-market fire protection service is obviously ridiculous. This wasn't some private company, it was a city tax-funded fire department fee. It would be like trying to say a private free-market in letter delivery wouldn't work because a mailman at the U.S. Postal Service opened your letter and stole money you were sending.

Cranick says he told the operator he would pay whatever is necessary to have the fire put out. His offer wasn't accepted, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

Any private company would be absolutely all over an offer like that and make an on-the-spot deal. Or more than likely simply have a set rate ahead of time where you can get on site protection at an increased cost.

[Gwynplaine]

However, if you don't want a type-1 diabetes diagnosis at 4 years of age to mean you'll be chained to employer-based healthcare until you're 65 or become an invalid

I totally agree that's a ludicrous aspect of health insurance as it has currently stood. I mentioned this a few pages ago about the tax incentives to tie insurance to employers. Your employer gets to buy insurance with *pre-tax dollars*, while you do *not*. The Occupy crowd professed to be against subsidies and "unfairness". Well that is one glaring issue that doesn't seem fair to me.

Instead of asking for *more* government interference in the form of Obamacare, people should insist politicians grant everyone the ability to buy insurance on their own with pre-tax money the same as business' can. That would be a real step forward to fixing health care and cut people free of losing insurance if they change jobs. You could potentially imagine a person being with the same insurance company their entire lives.

In that case if a customer has been with a provider for many years while succumbing to an illness then you don't have that problem of losing your job *and* insurance. While then being trapped out of new insurance because of your condition. The object of that frustration are the idiots who thought it was a good idea to offer that unique tax incentive in the first place. Controls breed controls. And the type of incentives and disincentives Rukenshin suggested earlier would wind up exactly the same. I'm not saying this is a complete solution to the actual problems of insurance as it is but as an indication of that look at my post a few pages ago.

[hey]

If you want cheap, as-close-to-universal-as-is-feasible insurance then a true free market is what you want. There's a good reason there's no "shoe crisis" or a "computer access crisis" or "calculator crisis". Private companies provide those things remarkably well with vast amounts of unique choices and competition. Dark Age Kings of Europe couldn't have dreamed of the kind of luxury we consider tacky in our time. If given some cheesy calculator fridge magnet as a promotional item most people would chuck it into a closet or the back of their car.

Would you say we have "universal" access to shoes and calculators and cellphones? No. But about as damned close as is realistically possible. I imagine it's possible but I've yet to meet anyone who lacks shoes. Without any government "shoe policy" or Federal Shoe Administration etc.

I don't know what police service has to do with anything, no one brought that up. I'm guessing you think I'm some kind of anarchist or something but that's not the case. The police are a vitally important part of government that shouldn't be, and can't successfully be done in a market. The police are extremely different from services like insurance, health care, and education.

Oh, gwyn.

[hey]

nvm

[archibaldcrane]

How does allowing you to buy insurance with pre-tax dollars help someone who is diagnosed with lupus at age 16 Gwyn?

It's great that they're paying with tax-advantaged money, except they are using that money to buy a product that literally noone in their right mind would sell unless they legally had to. You have not explained how you can avoid the pre-existing condition gambit in your lengthy "free market is god" rants, so here is your chance. Go.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

People are too dumb to buy insurance unless it is mandated. Justification complete.

PS. To those who quote this and disagree insurance is useful, case-in-point.

[Olo401]

http://www.fourfreedomsblog.com/Blog...ts&BlogID=1883

It's amazing to me how little people actually know about the ACA, and how much less they know about the actual mandate.

[Demosthenes11]

If you want cheap, as-close-to-universal-as-is-feasible insurance then a true free market is what you want. There's a good reason there's no "shoe crisis" or a "computer access crisis" or "calculator crisis". Private companies provide those things remarkably well with vast amounts of unique choices and competition. Dark Age Kings of Europe couldn't have dreamed of the kind of luxury we consider tacky in our time. If given some cheesy calculator fridge magnet as a promotional item most people would chuck it into a closet or the back of their car.

Would you say we have "universal" access to shoes and calculators and cellphones? No. But about as damned close as is realistically possible. I imagine it's possible but I've yet to meet anyone who lacks shoes. Without any government "shoe policy" or Federal Shoe Administration etc.

I don't know what police service has to do with anything, no one brought that up. I'm guessing you think I'm some kind of anarchist or something but that's not the case. The police are a vitally important part of government that shouldn't be, and can't successfully be done in a market. The police are extremely different from services like insurance, health care, and education.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs1/1738398_o.gif

[Acturus]

http://www.fourfreedomsblog.com/Blog...ts&BlogID=1883

It's amazing to me how little people actually know about the ACA, and how much less they know about the actual mandate.

Good post, and the author of that blog article does a good job of explaining the mandate's implementation and fallout.

[Pirian]

If you want cheap, as-close-to-universal-as-is-feasible insurance then a true free market is what you want. There's a good reason there's no "shoe crisis" or a "computer access crisis" or "calculator crisis". Private companies provide those things remarkably well with vast amounts of unique choices and competition. Dark Age Kings of Europe couldn't have dreamed of the kind of luxury we consider tacky in our time. If given some cheesy calculator fridge magnet as a promotional item most people would chuck it into a closet or the back of their car.

Would you say we have "universal" access to shoes and calculators and cellphones? No. But about as damned close as is realistically possible. I imagine it's possible but I've yet to meet anyone who lacks shoes. Without any government "shoe policy" or Federal Shoe Administration etc.

I don't know what police service has to do with anything, no one brought that up. I'm guessing you think I'm some kind of anarchist or something but that's not the case. The police are a vitally important part of government that shouldn't be, and can't successfully be done in a market. The police are extremely different from services like insurance, health care, and education.

Seriously, stop commenting on economic issues. You have no idea what you're talking about. I could go step by step and point out exactly why you're wrong, but you still wouldn't understand, and Archie already made a good post in this thread a few pages back that renders your whole post as moot, and he did it in a way that is better than I would because I suck at making analogies when trying to explain complicated models to the layman.

edit: Hmm, I can't seem to find the specific post that I was talking about, but I can't imagine what other thread it could be in.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

How does allowing you to buy insurance with pre-tax dollars help someone who is diagnosed with lupus at age 16 Gwyn?

It's great that they're paying with tax-advantaged money, except they are using that money to buy a product that literally noone in their right mind would sell unless they legally had to. You have not explained how you can avoid the pre-existing condition gambit in your lengthy "free market is god" rants, so here is your chance. Go.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

I think the whole "pre-tax" dollars thing is what created the employer based system instead of a consumer based system. In a consumer based system prices would be lower and the pre-existing condition thing may not be as a big a deal.

[archibaldcrane]

I think the whole "pre-tax" dollars thing is what created the employer based system instead of a consumer based system. In a consumer based system prices would be lower and the pre-existing condition thing may not be as a big a deal.

Swampy - I don't care if they're martian dollars, no insurance company is going to elect to insure someone with a lifelong debilitating medical issue. Why would they? In what realm of the free market would willfully throwing away money make sense? Use the reason lobe. Recognize the gambit.

You have two options: Say "fuck the people unlucky enough to have these debilitating medical issues that preclude them from getting insurance through no fault of their own"

or

"Government intervention"

There is no #3. Pick.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Swampy - I don't care if they're martian dollars, no insurance company is going to elect to insure someone with a lifelong debilitating medical issue. Why would they? In what realm of the free market would willfully throwing away money make sense? Use the reason lobe. Recognize the gambit.

You have two options: Say "fuck the people unlucky enough to have these debilitating medical issues that preclude them from getting insurance through no fault of their own"

or

"Government intervention"

There is no #3. Pick.

Are there any states that don't have high risk pools?