138 replies to this topic

[Shady]

If he calls your lair and you're not home, hopefully he'll leave a massage.

-k

Seems like it would be the appropriate thing to do. That way he could get back to him at another time.

[August1991]

It is directly related to my original 'argument', and I did not claim that people would have to give up employer based insurance. Higher demand with lower reimbursements would only lead to rationing and shortages to provide universal access to the 15% who do not have it today. What is excess capacity today would turn into Canadian style gate-keeping and long wait times.

Shortgaes and queues would be the medium term result of Obamacare. The long term result would be a lack of innovation. This lack of innovation is arguably the greatest cost because it means future generations will enjoy a lower standard of living.

Sadly, these future generations often live beyond the borders of the US. Many foreigners are free-riders to the current private US health care system and its incentives for innovation. As Joni Mitchell sang, "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."

You are also wrong about scarcity. Because people without insurance eventually need more care than people with insurance.

This argument has always struck me as specious.

In Canada nowadays, millions of people have no GP and delay regular check-ups because they are not willing to wait in line in a clinic to see a generic doctor for at most a cursory examination. In effect, Canada's health system operates as you describe the US system. Our rationed, single-payer system encourages many Canadians to put off regular attention until an expensive catastrophe occurs.

But it has taken about 40 years or so (medium term) for Canadians to see this. In 1980, all Canadians had ready access to a GP. Thirty years later, some Canadians likely still see the same GP - and see no problem with our health care system. Other Canadians have a different view of this.

Edited by August1991, 02 April 2012 - 09:41 PM.

[August1991]

1) Individual mandate to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties (unconstitutional to force Americans to buy a product or service).

Nope, I'm just trying to figure out what your buddy is saying. It's not tax one day, but on another day, in front of the Supreme Court, it is a tax. Even though it's not. We all know the difference between a tax and a penalty.

Let's be clear.

The key issue is that Obamacare requires that all Americans have/buy health insurance. If they don't have this insurance, they are subject to a fine. (In essence, this is the so-called "individual mandate": Have health insurance from whatever regulated source or pay a fine.)

The US Supreme Court is now deciding whether the US federal government has the power to force all Americans to buy something - subject to a "fine" if they don't.

[In Canada, we all pay taxes and this funds our health system. In the US, all Americans pay taxes too. No Supreme Court in either country would question the government's power to tax.]

But is the "fine" of the individual mandate a "tax"? Or is the US federal government forcing all individuals to do something?

----

At first glance, there is no difference between a government health care premium, a tax or even a fine. On second glance, there's a world of difference.

I'm not American but the older I get, the more the American Federal State impresses me. Its Constitution is a remarkable bulwark to protect the future's individual freedom.

I reckon that the judges on the US Supreme Court are asking the right questions.

Edited by August1991, 02 April 2012 - 09:47 PM.

[dre]

Shortgaes and queues would be the medium term result of Obamacare. The long term result would be a lack of innovation. This lack of innovation is arguably the greatest cost because it means future generations will enjoy a lower standard of living.

Theres no reason to believe that. THe medical industry will be MORE profitable under Obamacare. That means more money for R&D if they choose to spend it there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Theres no reason to believe that. THe medical industry will be MORE profitable under Obamacare. That means more money for R&D if they choose to spend it there.

You mean like all the money for R&D in Canada?

[Shady]

THe medical industry will be MORE profitable under Obamacare.

Right. Because Obama's new medical device tax totally leads to higher profits.

[Bonam]

Theres no reason to believe that. THe medical industry will be MORE profitable under Obamacare. That means more money for R&D if they choose to spend it there.

Government mandated profit from customers who are coerced against their will to buy your product doesn't really count in the mind of an honest businessman

I'd feel dirty if I sold a product that people only bought because of the threat of government sanction if they failed to do so.

[punked]

Government mandated profit from customers who are coerced against their will to buy your product doesn't really count in the mind of an honest businessman

I'd feel dirty if I sold a product that people only bought because of the threat of government sanction if they failed to do so.

Do you actually believe the only reason people buy health insurance is because they are mandated by the government? Is that the starting premise of your argument because it is pretty darn wrong if it is.

[Bonam]

Do you actually believe the only reason people buy health insurance is because they are mandated by the government? Is that the starting premise of your argument because it is pretty darn wrong if it is.

No. Many people buy health insurance because they need/want it. And that's perfectly legitimate and I have absolutely nothing against that obviously.

However, some individuals may not want to pay for health insurance. For example, maybe they have millions of dollars in a savings account and would rather just pay out of pocket if/when they require healthcare. Or maybe they're at a time in they're life where they prioritize other spending and voluntarily choose to take the risk of not being insured, so as to allocate their money to other things. Or maybe they are young and healthy and don't want to pay a premium far in excess of what they cost to insure so that people with far higher medical costs are covered.

"Obamacare" includes a mandate which requires individuals to buy health insurance whether they want to or not. That is the main issue in debate regarding its constitutionality.

[punked]

No. Many people buy health insurance because they need/want it. And that's perfectly legitimate and I have absolutely nothing against that obviously.

However, some individuals may not want to pay for health insurance. For example, maybe they have millions of dollars in a savings account and would rather just pay out of pocket if/when they require healthcare. Or maybe they're at a time in they're life where they prioritize other spending and voluntarily choose to take the risk of not being insured, so as to allocate their money to other things. Or maybe they are young and healthy and don't want to pay a premium far in excess of what they cost to insure so that people with far higher medical costs are covered.

"Obamacare" includes a mandate which requires individuals to buy health insurance whether they want to or not. That is the main issue in debate regarding its constitutionality.

Just like car insurance you don't need to buy healthcare insurance if you have enough money if something should happen and you can pay out of pocket. Just like car insurance you post a bond take that bond to the government to show that you are covered and never be "forced" to buy the insurance. So your example of the millionaire does not work.

Even if you are young and healthy and you get in an accident let's say you break your arm and it costs 20,000 to fix it. Who pays for that if you are broke and can't pay well everyone else of course. I wouldn't want to buy insurance either if I could just make everyone else pay to, how is that fair? That is the problem everyone will need health care at sometime and if they have no insurance and no money everyone else pays for them.

It is like Mitt Romney said

"Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."

Your examples are wrong which might explain why you think what you do. Easiest and best way to solve the problem though......Medicare for all.

Edited by punked, 05 April 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Shady]

Just like car insurance you don't need to buy healthcare insurance

People are required to buy car insurance if they CHOOSE to drive. You don't expect people to choose whether to live or not regarding being forced to purchase private health insurance do you? Come'on punked, stop being so disingenuous.

[Bonam]

I do think the US needs some kind of healthcare reform. The reality is that a lot of money could be saved by providing people with preventative care rather than emergency care, which is the among the most expensive types of care available. This would also keep people healthier and more productive, another important economic benefit.

But the way this particular law chooses to do it: using the power of government to force you to buy a private product sets a terrible precedent. Once this power is established, how long until the government uses this power in other contexts?

[Shady]

I do think the US needs some kind of healthcare reform.

Most people would agree.

But the way this particular law chooses to do it: using the power of government to force you to buy a private product sets a terrible precedent.

Exactly. That was one of the problems the lawyers arguing in favour of Obamacare had. The court asked them essentially where the line would be, and they couldn't come up with an answer. In effect, saying that this proposition is limitless.

[jbg]

Even if you are young and healthy and you get in an accident let's say you break your arm and it costs 20,000 to fix it. Who pays for that if you are broke and can't pay well everyone else of course.

That's the argument for market based risk premiums. It may be that a 27 year old would pay $600 per year for health insurance, maybe $1000. But not the $9000 or so that "community rated" premiums cost. Thus he'd be covered for the unlikely but possible breakage of an arm.

[punked]

That's the argument for market based risk premiums. It may be that a 27 year old would pay $600 per year for health insurance, maybe $1000. But not the $9000 or so that "community rated" premiums cost. Thus he'd be covered for the unlikely but possible breakage of an arm.

Which is how insurance works.