The Moment of Truth

[Texas Proud]

I think we will go a LOT farther than 30 or 33...




And yes, padding the count

 

[pb4uski]

....If it's upheld, then it will be a testament to how well it was conceived and written.

Given how poorly conceived and written virtually everything coming out of DC is these days if it needs to be well conceived and written in order to be upheld then that makes me feel a lot better.

(3 posts left?)

 

[samclem]

The debate is good to see. Shame on any HS civics teacher who isn't using the present hearing, the legislative battle that preceded it, and the involvement of the executive branch as a case study in the fundamental purposes of the three branches of government and the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution.

 

[powerplay]

The debate is good to see. Shame on any HS civics teacher who isn't using the present hearing, the legislative battle that preceded it, and the involvement of the executive branch as a case study in the fundamental purposes of the three branches of government and the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution.

I agree and appreciate hearing the issues being brought out in the debate. We still have to wait till June before we know how SCOTUS will rule.

 

[unclemick]

I think we will go a LOT farther than 30 or 33...




And yes, padding the count

This is a bogus thread. I think somebody mugged Porky. Plus like a fool I watched some coverage on Peter Rose(PBS) and my ears shut down and my eyes glazed over.

So how much was the pool up too anyway?

heh heh heh -

 

[FinanceGeek]

Just today, a big move in the information markets (now at 56% likely to strike down):

Intrade - The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012 is 56.8% probable

 

[harley]

Hmmm...I have post 32, so...

These guys over here are right, and anybody over there is a moron! And God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is on our side! And...darn it, y'all and your pig have ruined my ability to obnoxiously argue politics.

 

[Major Tom]

Hmmm...I have post 32, so...

These guys over here are right, and anybody over there is a moron! And God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) is on our side! And...darn it, y'all and your pig have ruined my ability to obnoxiously argue politics.

No, no, NO - you've got it the wrong way round - the guys over THERE are the imbeciles, and the country's going to hell in a hand-basket if they get their way.

 

[Huston55]

The debate is good to see. Shame on any HS civics teacher who isn't using the present hearing, the legislative battle that preceded it, and the involvement of the executive branch as a case study in the fundamental purposes of the three branches of government and the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution.

+1

I attended high school in Northern Virginia during Watergate, and had the good fortune to have a Government teacher who turned the entire class into a Watergate workshop.

 

[Huston55]

Only if I lose the pool.

Starting a pool about the constitutionality of the government starting a pool...

...the sweet irony.

 

[Old Microbiologist]

I am constantly shocked that we Americans have given up completely on the idea of universal coverage as a Federal expense. It is absolutely insane what I see going on in the US and the costs incurred. Obama care appears to have benefited the insurance companies more than the people using the system. It also amazes me that we can be constantly at war with multiple wars simultaneously at horrendous costs and no one even thinks that is abnormal. To not give health care as a benefit to Americans is crazy. Prior to Medicare costs in the US were normal and affordable. Doctors were not millionaires. Hospitals were not corporate businesses and non-profit was the status quo. But, after Medicare things got out of control through poorly managed payment systems which gave the green light to doctors and insurance companies to start making serious money. It snowballed from there and we now have this horribly costly and ineffective system we have today. Health care should not be a business. It should be performed at adequate levels to everyone on an equal basis and should be guaranteed in our Constitution. Maybe that is a socialistic idea but who said that was a bad thing? I served in the US Army for 28 years and nothing is more socialistic than the military. I have the worst possible health care coverage that the military offers despite my being promised free health care for life. I suffer under Tricare Overseas which pays roughly 65% of costs. My wife and I moved to Hungary where health care is a state run operation, all doctors are civil servants and all have close to the same salary which is roughly $2000 a month. All of them operate private clinics in the evening for patients like us who are willing to pay cash. Expenses are very low and roughly 10% or less of those in the US. We are not covered nor will we be ever covered by the Hungarian National Health system but we do pay cash and it is easily affordable. Even catastrophic care is cheap here. Why Americans don't just rise up and demand basic human rights from our government I cannot understand. Has anyone ever tried to figure out what the government does with our tax dollars? I can't see it doing anything for me directly. So, I am happy to reap the benefits from the former Soviet system here. I have a lot of friends who are doctors and all are doing relatively well here and despite their low official salaries they still are among the top 10% earners in the country. But, here anyone earning more than $40K is considered rich.

 

[pb4uski]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Oh well, it had to happen eventually. only 6 posts later than projected.

 

[MichaelB]

We can keep the thread going. Let's just move right along...

 

[FinanceDude]

The debate is good to see. Shame on any HS civics teacher who isn't using the present hearing, the legislative battle that preceded it, and the involvement of the executive branch as a case study in the fundamental purposes of the three branches of government and the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution.

Or as a case of legislative abuse of government............ The individual mandate is simply a removal of our personal freedoms, nothing more, nothing less, and really has little to do with insurance, but much more about entitlement. The govt solicitor got his head handed to him yesterday.......

 

[FinanceDude]

I am constantly shocked that we Americans have given up completely on the idea of universal coverage as a Federal expense. It is absolutely insane what I see going on in the US and the costs incurred. Obama care appears to have benefited the insurance companies more than the people using the system. It also amazes me that we can be constantly at war with multiple wars simultaneously at horrendous costs and no one even thinks that is abnormal. To not give health care as a benefit to Americans is crazy. Prior to Medicare costs in the US were normal and affordable. Doctors were not millionaires. Hospitals were not corporate businesses and non-profit was the status quo. But, after Medicare things got out of control through poorly managed payment systems which gave the green light to doctors and insurance companies to start making serious money. It snowballed from there and we now have this horribly costly and ineffective system we have today. Health care should not be a business. It should be performed at adequate levels to everyone on an equal basis and should be guaranteed in our Constitution. Maybe that is a socialistic idea but who said that was a bad thing? I served in the US Army for 28 years and nothing is more socialistic than the military. I have the worst possible health care coverage that the military offers despite my being promised free health care for life. I suffer under Tricare Overseas which pays roughly 65% of costs. My wife and I moved to Hungary where health care is a state run operation, all doctors are civil servants and all have close to the same salary which is roughly $2000 a month. All of them operate private clinics in the evening for patients like us who are willing to pay cash. Expenses are very low and roughly 10% or less of those in the US. We are not covered nor will we be ever covered by the Hungarian National Health system but we do pay cash and it is easily affordable. Even catastrophic care is cheap here. Why Americans don't just rise up and demand basic human rights from our government I cannot understand. Has anyone ever tried to figure out what the government does with our tax dollars? I can't see it doing anything for me directly. So, I am happy to reap the benefits from the former Soviet system here. I have a lot of friends who are doctors and all are doing relatively well here and despite their low official salaries they still are among the top 10% earners in the country. But, here anyone earning more than $40K is considered rich.

What's the population of Hungary? Not apples to apples..........

 

[Texas Proud]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Oh well, it had to happen eventually. only 6 posts later than projected.

Yea... I was thinking the same thing when I was reading that post.... a killjoy



Still padding the count!!!

 

[BigNick]

What's the population of Hungary? Not apples to apples..........

Whatever the rest of the debate, I don't understand this question. I've not yet seen any suggestion from either side of the argument that a reason to choose this or that healthcare system is a question of scalability to a certain number of people, or, conversely, population density per square mile/km. For example, the population of the US as a whole is only 4 times bigger than that of Germany; on the other hand, Hungary has a population larger than all but 7 US states.

Also, I don't think that the proposal was specifically to adopt Hungary's system. It's one of the lowest rated in Europe. France, Italy, Spain, and even the crappy old UK are all ranked above the US, and all have different models; nobody's proposing adopting any of those brick-by-brick either, as far as I know. But the general point, that even many countries with a substantially lower GDP than the US are not having their citizens dying in droves from curable conditions, or wearing "don't euthanize me" bracelets , is reasonably valid.

 

[samclem]

It's interesting to compare/contrast the questions posed by the Justices. Some of the Justices concentrate on the need and impact of the law, on the severability of the mandate, etc (paraphrase: "what will this do to insurers if the mandate is struck down but the law stands", "if Medicaid eligibility is expanded, what will this do to the state budgets", etc). Other justices seem much more focused on the whether the law is a proper use of federal power under the Constitution. I guess these different perspectives stem from fundamentally different views of the role of the Supreme Court. Very interesting stuff.

 

[Texas Proud]

It's interesting to compare/contrast the questions posed by the Justices. Some of the Justices concentrate on the need and impact of the law, on the severability of the mandate, etc (paraphrase: "what will this do to insurers if the mandate is struck down but the law stands", "if Medicaid eligibility is expanded, what will this do to the state budgets", etc). Other justices seem much more focused on the whether the law is a proper use of federal power under the Constitution. I these different perspectives stem from fundamentally different views of the role of the Supreme Court. Very interesting stuff.

I have not heard the arguments (I still do something for a paycheck).... but I think from the clips on the news etc. that it is true...

I wish they all would first consider the proper use of federal powers since that has a lot more impact going forward.... even though a lot of people are against the law, I think if it is upheld it give the gvmt a lot more power than was anticipated in the Constitution... I think they could have written the law differently to basically acheive the sames ends without (IMO) crossing the line of constitutionality....

 

[Gone4Good]

I think they could have written the law differently to basically acheive the sames ends without (IMO) crossing the line of constitutionality....

Certainly. They easily could have written the law to bump every tax bracket up 1%-2.5% (the size of the penalty), included a per-person tax deduction for everyone who buys health insurance equal to 1%-2.5% of AGI, dropped the word "mandate," and the word "penalty" and the whole thing would be constitutional. The ease with which we can achieve the same exact thing by slightly different means exposes the silliness of this whole debate.

 

[Texas Proud]

Certainly. They easily could have written the law to bump every tax bracket up 1%-2.5% (the size of the penalty), included a per-person tax deduction for everyone who buys health insurance equal to 1%-2.5% of AGI, dropped the word "mandate," and the word "penalty" and the whole thing would be constitutional. The ease with which we can achieve the same exact thing by slightly different means exposes the silliness of this whole debate.

But IMO if it were presented to the average American as a tax with a deduction, they would be against it... that is why it is packaged as is... and why it might be in trouble....

Also, even if packaged as you say, I doubt that some of the other arguments that are being made would go away.... there are a lot of people who do not like it no matter how you package it... that is the real debate...

PS... I think we are both being civil here... let's hope others are and do not bring on piggy....

 

[samclem]

Just today, a big move in the information markets (now at 56% likely to strike down):

Intrade - The US Supreme Court to rule individual mandate unconstitutional before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012 is 56.8% probable

Now the information markets are saying there's a 62% likelihood the individual mandate will be struck down. Of course, that's just folks like us reacting to what they hear (and want to hear?). We'll hear from the market that matters in late June--and in November.

 

[Chuckanut]

I think the individual mandate could be replaced by a system of open enrollment every year or two. The whole point of requiring insurance is to keep people from gaming the system by not buying it when healthy and then buying it only when they are sick. In other words, they want to be leach off the other people. However, if there was an open enrollment every two years, many of these people would have to think twice since they could easily be betting their life. Most people I know with serious illnesses usually can't wait a year or two for medical care. Sure, some will be able to wati and come out ahead, but not nearly as many as f there were an 'enroll anytime' policy.

Another idea would be to allow enrollment outside the open enrollment period but apply pre-existing conditions for the first few years. Again, they would be betting their life.

The one problem I see is that Mr. Leach decides not to buy insurance for his family and himself. A few months later, his 6 year old daughter, Linda Leach, gets ill. Do we really want to deny her care because her father is a leach?

The simplest thing would be to say "here is the package of medical care we are going to provide citizens and legal aliens, this is the tax that is going to pay for it'. You, good citizens, tell us if you want this or not, in a series of statewide plebiscites during an election year.

Dream on......

 

[Gone4Good]

The one problem I see is that Mr. Leach decides not to buy insurance for his family and himself. A few months later, his 6 year old daughter, Linda Leach, gets ill. Do we really want to deny her care because her father is a leach?

As I understand the argument, the free riding ways of Mr. Leach is a constitutionally protected right.

 

[MichaelB]

Intrade has shown some accuracy at forecasting outcomes of popular votes, but only a day or two ahead of elections. This is not a public vote and the outcome is not limited to "keep or revoke". The US Supreme Court is expert at ruling in a way that satisfies no one but itself.

I thought this was well-said.

The debate is good to see. Shame on any HS civics teacher who isn't using the present hearing, the legislative battle that preceded it, and the involvement of the executive branch as a case study in the fundamental purposes of the three branches of government and the wisdom of the drafters of the Constitution.