HealthCare

T

train

Guest
So - as this gets to be more and more - "screw everyone and what they care about - we are pushing this down your throat"... anyone have a different take on it...

I'm up for the spreading the healthcare - but don't force everyone to pay for it - instead begin regulating and limiting the greed... So not quite the industry - but do something like cost-containment...
 
E

EricBess

Guest
The more things progress on this, the more I start to think that instead of trying to come up with a "better system", they need to address why it broke in the first place.

The free market system works if it is allowed to. Historically, the current problem all started when government put salary caps into effect and in order to intice good workers, companies started offering to pay for heath care.

If individuals purchased health care, they would have more control to pick and choose what they needed covered. Right now, people go to the doctor and they have no idea how much the doctor is charging. They don't have or even need the flexibility to shop around for a doctor that they like that they feel charges a reasonable fee.

The only two areas of heathcare that are decreasing costs right now are lasik and plastic surgery and that is because "insurance" typically doesn't cover those things. So, in order to attract customers, they have to make those things attractive to customers and that means innovation and ways to be able to charge less through better techniques and less expensive equipment.

Just speculating here, but I wonder if heath care had been a personal responsibility if we wouldn't have some sort of hand-held MRI or CT device by now. I'm just saying, the cost of the equipment is through the roof. Computers have gotten a lot smaller, but CT and MRI machines are still behemoths that are very expensive to make. Since the costs are so far removed from the individual, where is the incentive to innovate?

We asked our doctor the other day how much he charges for an office visit if you don't have insurance. He told us that he used to charge $100, but they recently reduced it to $50. Apparently, the insurnace company told them to charge $100, so they did. As more and more people come in without insurance, they start really analizing that and realized that there was no real reason to charge that much, so they lowered their price to avoid loosing patients. Where was the incentive to not pay $100 for an office visit if the insurance company is footing the bill? Where is the incentive for the doctor to keep prices low if the insurance company will pay it?

I earlier said "insurance" in quotes because most people don't really think "insurance" anymore. Why does "insurance" pay for an office visit anyway? That's like expecting car insurance to pay for my gas. The whole point of insurance is to protect you from extream expenses. And if an "insurance" policy has a maximum cap that they will ever pay, then how is that even doing it's job?

What we need is a system where insurance really is insurance. Where consumers purchase the plan that makes sense for them and if they want office visits covered, then so be in, but the policy is more expensive. If they only want catastrophic, then they don't pay much, but the day-to-day expenses are out of pocket. They are free to shop around and find a doctor that is charges what they think is reasonable and there is incentive for doctors to keep costs down.

Sure, I would be paying $50 every time I went to the doctor, but my "insurance" right now costs over $1k/month (most was paid by employer, so you don't think about it, but don't kid yourself that it comes out of salary). So if I can get catastrophic insurance for say $300/month, that's an extra $700/month. I would have to go to the doctor fewer than 14 times a month if I wanted to break even. I think I can handle that...
 
T

train

Guest
Well stated... As we do not have direct control over it, then there is room for manipulation and greed...

but when everyone looks to spend less on utility bills, and gas and even lower food expenses, there is a shift in the market and we can cause adjustments to occur.

I currently self-insure the family and only take advantage of the work one for me because it is paid for... covering them off the company policy is much more effective and we haven't had anything come up that hasn't been handled yet...
 
T

train

Guest
Well - it's back... and making it past the house with reconciliation - it most likely get past the senate and to the president...

Everyone ready?
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Does anyone fully understand the process??

I thought...That the senate passed a bill earier and the house passed a bill earlier, so they needed to go through a process of merging the two bills, then the house and the senate would once again vote on the merged bill in order to pass that.

But...since Masachesetts voted in a Republican senator, they didn't think they would be able to get it passed in the senate anymore, so they had to try this reconciliation.

So...instead of merging the two bills, the house would need to pass the senate bill. Since the senate bill already passed the senate, once it passed the house also, it would be law (after the president signed it or 10 days without vetoing it).

At that point, they would use reconciliation to introduced the changes that the house wanted to the bill. So the house, even though they hate the senate bill, would need to trust the senate to vote through their changes (yeah right).

But here's the part I don't understand. I thought they had to vote through the senate bill "as is". Or at the very least, they would have to vote on it with the senate "reconiliation changes" in place, but it doesn't seem to me that this is what happened. It seems like this bill was based on the senate bill, but I've heard of enough differences that I'm wondering if there is something else in this process that I'm not understanding.

Does anyone have any insight? I've found a lot of sites that explain pieces of the process or that say that the process is complicated, but it seems like there has to be something somewhere that makes it a little clearer...?
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
My paper tried to explain it, but I got lost too. It's some "background political maneuvering" thing.
 
T

train

Guest
It doesn't get any clearer... I'll try an explanation tonight.

anyone excited?
 
D

DarthFerret

Guest
Ok, so it appears that we are going to have a socialized healthcare system. It also appears as if it is going to be rammed through into law, ignoring some of the processes that all other laws (other than martial) have to go through. And it appears that Obama has lied to us yet again with his statement of "Not signing anything for 5 days so that the public can review it" when in fact he does the opposite.

I know that we do not all agree on nationalized healthcare, and probably never will. However, I would hope that we can all agree that, while it is not the most efficient system, our process of making and impementing new laws has been set in stone by law itself. To flaunt this system, is to break the law. To skirt the system is to try and avoid the checks and balances that are built into our governement structure. If a bill is introduced that is supposed to be a good thing for everyone, then why try and sneak it through in some obscure way? Why not let it go through the normal process? Also, if a bill is a good and desperately needed thing (as this is being hailed by the media and liberals on Capitol Hill), why have some parts introduced immediately, while others wait up to 6 years to become active?

Again, polliticizing seems to overwhelm common sense. If you think you have a good bill, Keep It Simple Stupid, and let it go through a process that, although not the most efficient, is the only one we have in place at this time.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
So, I saw this thing the other day where some kid (early 20s) went to what appeared to be a tea party rally and started asking people about the healthcare bill. Everyone was opposed to it, but no one (that he showed anyway) could give a legitimate answer about what was in the bill or what specifically they didn't like about it.

It's pretty clear that a lot of people trust certain entities, but haven't done enough reserach themselves.

Personally, I don't know 100% what is in the bill, but there are some highlights. Healthcare in this bill is not technically socialized. However, it is a step in the direction of socialization. The "socialized" part of this bill is that anyone making less than $14K/year will have their healthcare paid for by the taxpayers. Anyone making less than I think $45 (don't know the exact number) will be subsidized.

Insurance companies will
- only be able to offer plans that keep children on the plan until they are 26.
- only be able to offer plans that don't have lifetime ceilings.
- only be able to offer plans that don't descriminate based on pre-existing conditions.
- etc.

I intentionally word it this way because some insurance companies already offer such...except for the keeping children until they are 26, I think current standard is 21. Ironically, I think that provision is the least needed, but the one that actually ends up insuring more of the currently uninsured than the subsidies do. A great majority of the people currently uninsured in this country are college students in good health that realistically don't need much insurance and could buy it for $70/month if they wanted it, but choose not to. Yes, for a college student, $70/month is difficult, but certainly doable.

But the point is, insurance companies will cover just about anything you want them to cover, but they will set their prices accordingly. The upshot is that the government is using the cost of premiums as a tool to say that health care costs are rising.

Oh, and they are forcing the American people to purchase insurance or pay a fine, which is unconstitutional, but we'll see what the courts say. The reason for that is because by disallowing pre-existing conditions, you create a situation where no one needs health insurance because you can always go out and buy it whenever you need to use it. However, the upshot is that if insurance companies know you have to buy their product, they will naturally raise their prices for that reason alone, on top of all the legitimate reasons why premiums are going to increase.

In short, expect insurance premiums to increase significantly and taxes will also increase significantly to pay for all of the subsidies (capital gains tax increases by over 35%, for example - so don't bother investing). So while it isn't technically socialized medicine (where taxpayers pay for everyone), it is definitely a socialized basis of redistribution.

The good news: if you have a medical emergency, you will no longer go bankrupt trying to pay for it. The bad news: we will all go bankrupt just paying for the new premiums and taxes.

I expect that a few years down the road, they will claim that insurance companies are just greedy raising premiums even under this new law and we need to do even more, etc, etc, and we will end up with socialized medicine because the government will claim that they left things up to the market and see where that got us...
 
R

rokapoke

Guest
EricBess;290613 said:
Oh, and they are forcing the American people to purchase insurance or pay a fine, which is unconstitutional, but we'll see what the courts say.
I don't understand how it is unconstitutional. Do you have car insurance? If you drive you do.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Two reasons...
1) Car insurance is a state regulation, not federal.
2) Car insurance is not mandated. You said it yourself. I have the option to not drive a car. I don't have an option to not have a body.
 

turgy22

Nothing Special
EricBess;290613 said:
Oh, and they are forcing the American people to purchase insurance or pay a fine, which is unconstitutional, but we'll see what the courts say.
Honest question here, but I was curious about this, so I looked up the Constitution and read over all the powers and limitations of congress, but couldn't find any examples that would specifically apply to this situation. Can you explain to me what parts of the Constitution do apply and how they're supposed to be interpreted?

I think a lot of the time, people have an idea in their mind about what the Constitution does and does not say and then when certain things happen that impact that idea, their immediate response is to say it's unconstitutional, even though they can't back it up with actual quotes from the Constitution. I think I may be a bit guilty of this myself, because I was honestly expecting to find something on the subject matter to back you up. Instead, I found this...

US Constitution said:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Here's the part that stood out to me (made into a complete, uninterrupted sentence.): The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States. I'm no constitutional scholar, but that seems to imply to me that Congress does have the right to institute a socialized health care system - taxing everyone equally and paying for care, which would improve the overall health (welfare) of the country.

Now, from my understanding, the health bill that passed did so because people were so strongly opposed to universal government health care and the final bill was a compromise away from that. I find it strange that our current system (which is broken because of extreme capitalistic greed) is clearly constitutional, as is socialized health care, but something in between the two is not.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
That's a good question turgy. Part of this stems from what the constitution is. This country was founded as sovereign states with a federal government designed to protect the common good between states. Contrary to popular believe, we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, meaning that each state has a voice provided by a representative of that state.

But one thing you need to ask yourself is whether or not the constitution is intended to be a list of restrictions, or a list of authorities. It is fairly well established (though some do question this) that the constitution is intended as a list of rights of the federal government.

So the question that should be asked isn't whether there is anything in the constitution that disallows it, but whether there are provisions in the constitution that allow it in the first place.

I believe you are correct about whether or not congress could socialize medicine. But where in the constitution does it say that they can require people to make specific purchases?

You have me curious now. I'm going to see if I can find anything that might specifically be interpreted as restricting that behavior, but I stand by my interpretation that the federal government does not have the authority given them to force people to make purchases. Therefore, that requirement is unconstitutional.

BTW - If I am correct on my history (and I may be wrong here), the clause that you quote wasn't added to the constitution until after the civil war. Prior to that, and under the original articles, the federal government did not have the authority to levy taxes directly. Again, I may be wrong, but that is my recollection.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Ammendment 10 said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So unless there is something that specifically allows the government to force me to buy a certain product...
Ammendment 14.1 said:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I would consider requiring me to purchase health insurance or suffer a penalty as depriving me of property. Again, automobile insurance is optional - this is not.

BTW - concerning automobile insurance. I'm not required to have comprehensive insurance. I don't even have to cover my own car. I just have to be covered enough to pay for any damages that I might inflict on others.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
turgy22;290620 said:
Here's the part that stood out to me (made into a complete, uninterrupted sentence.): The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes for the general welfare of the United States. I'm no constitutional scholar, but that seems to imply to me that Congress does have the right to institute a socialized health care system - taxing everyone equally and paying for care, which would improve the overall health (welfare) of the country.
Just to support what I was saying, the original text of the constitution says that you said, but later states:
Constitution said:
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.)
I'm not sure exactly what this means, but my recollection is that the federal government raised revenues through the states and not directly from the people, so the amount that each state paid would be based on the census data. This was later changed in the 16th ammendment, which states:
Ammendment 16 said:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
All I got out of the health care bill (from an analysis from my paper) was that a lot of it will not take effect until 2014, for some reason...
 
E

EricBess

Guest
It's easy to explain why it won't kick in until 2014. At least, this is my understanding. When they send the bill to the committee that determines cost over the next 10-years, they look only at what is presented to them. In this bill is provisions to raise taxes immediately, so for the next 4 years, we will be paying higher taxes. Then, it kicks in for the final 6 years of that 10-year period.

So, the bill as written for the next 10 years includes 10 years of increased taxes and 6 years of actual "coverage". Because it "pays for itself", it is "deficit neutral", but if you look at what needs to start happening after that 10-year period to maintain at the same level, taxes will need to increase even further.
 
Top