Health Reform Not Constitutional

[NJgunowner]

Hogdogs your argument is silly. I got MRSA a few years ago and got to spend 5 days in the hospital. The bill was north of $20,000. Would you rather I have insurance to pay that, or have to get it from the government using your taxes?

People who believe they don't need insurance are probably already using Medicaid to pay the bill.

I paid $300 of that hospital stay, my insurance picked up the rest. I haven't paid $20k into my insurance plan yet and that's after 10 years, I figure another 15 years of paying should make us even

Insurance is one of those things you don't think you need... right up until you need it.

[BlueTrain]

The purpose of insurance, among other things, is to prevent financial catastrophe--to the policyholder. And insurance, all insurance, works by spreading out the risk. And I've already made my comment about worker's compensation insurance. It apparently just doesn't work in some states for some reason.

Furthermore, insurance wouldn't work if only those in grave danger of needing it bought it. That might sound dense but think of flood insurance. Everyone knows where it floods--same places it always has--yet people still insist on being able to build in those places and still expect to be able to insure the property, which lenders prudently require. You do know who you ultimately buy flood insurance from, don't you? Whole life insurance is easiest to explain, because guess what the risk of dying is?

Anyhow, it isn't difficult to have a catastrophe and any talk about insurance is probably missing the point, which is that health care is very expensive. Why that is so, should be the question.

[a.lol.cat]

Originally Posted by peetzakilla

Second, there is positively no reason that health insurance companies can not compete across state lines. None whatsoever.

An issue with across state line insurance is that each state regulates it's insurance industry. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning. Selling across state lines would require uniform Federal regulation, taking away individual state rights to regulate insurance in their states, OR could cause clustering of insurance companies in state(s) with weaker insurance regulation.

Kinda like how patent lawsuits are filed in places like Federal Eastern District of Texas, it's the numbers, patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 nationwide. If I'm a company that 19% advantage is massive incentive to move any cases to that district.

[Musketeer]

The way to keep 1,500 pages of law from being declared unconstitutional based on one section is to write multiple shorter laws!

Seriously, it was ONE law that was voted on and signed. Would the law have passed if one section were removed? You can't know. Either a law is constitutional or it is not. Saying part of it isn't but the balance can stay is nonsense unless sections of the law were voted on separately. Politicians jam tons of garbage into a law to piggyback it along with the meat and potatoes because they know their little personal projects will be carried along. If the courts did as required more often, tossing the entire law when one section of it is unconstitutional then we would have far less problems.

Those pushing this law forward intentionally cobbled it together for a single all encompassing vote. It is ONE law.

[NJgunowner]

Blue has a point.

The question should be why is our health costs is so much higher than in other countries and how do we fix it. Health costs have spiraled out of control here. Most countries regulate the cost of medication to prevent price gouging. The pharmaceutical companies still make a VERY healthy profit in those places. Yet here, they can charge whatever they want. You can claim free enterprise, but come on! Meds that costs canada $50 cost $150 here. That's just nuts.

I work for a hospital. The main reason a hospital visit costs so much is we have to cover "charity care". That would be people without insurance who default on the bill. The Medicare and Medicaid payments we get usually don't even cover cost, so we have to make up the rest somehow. This is why you're seeing a push to get more people covered by insurance. Less charity care means hospitals don't have to charge as much to keep the lights on.

[Musketeer]

An issue with across state line insurance is that each state regulates it's insurance industry. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning. Selling across state lines would require uniform Federal regulation, taking away individual state rights to regulate insurance in their states, OR could cause clustering of insurance companies in state(s) with weaker insurance regulation.

Or you could simply require any company providing coverage to those residing in a particular state to be required to meet all regulations set forth by that state.

If a company in state A wants to sell insurance to residents of state B then any coverage offered to them must meet state B's regulations. If the company does not like it then they do not have to offer it. If the people do not likethe limited selection in their state then they can petition THEIR state to change their regulations. If politicians in that state ignore the problem then let the people replace them.

No federal government is needed!

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Hogdogs your argument is silly. I got MRSA a few years ago and got to spend 5 days in the hospital. The bill was north of $20,000. Would you rather I have insurance to pay that, or have to get it from the government using your taxes?

How many times in your life as that been necessary? Insurance in NY state cost better than $1200 a month to cover a family. That's $14,400 a year. Considering that I spend an average of about $100 a month on medical costs, I could be putting $1000 a month in the bank and be money ahead, so long as that $20,000 bill happens an average of less than every 20 months.


People need to understand something.... you DO NOT, CAN NOT save money, on the long haul, by having insurance. Insurance companies make a PROFIT. That means that you are paying MORE than you cost. Yes, you might get lucky and save money, most of us will not. Check the profits of the insurance companies. We would almost all be better off paying our own bills.


If I saved the amount of money that insurance costs I would be many, many thousands of dollars ahead. $14,400 a year, for the 4 3/4 years since I had my first kid, minus the roughly $15,000 I've paid in that time would puts me.... $67,000 AHEAD of the game.



The government should be in the business of FIXING these cost problems, not mandating people to buy things that cost them MORE, individually and as a whole, than not buying things.

[Musketeer]

Most countries regulate the cost of medication to prevent price gouging. The pharmaceutical companies still make a VERY healthy profit in those places. Yet here, they can charge whatever they want. You can claim free enterprise, but come on! Meds that costs canada $50 cost $150 here. That's just nuts

1. Are we assuming that those other countries are regulating the production of knock off drugs which are benefitting from the significant investment made by the creator?

2. By reducing the market price in certain nations artificially those nations ensure the USA will have to pay higher in order to make up the lost potential earnings. Yes, we are underwriting the medications for other nations.

3. And what liability protection is afforded those pharmaceutical companies in those nations with lower prices? Instead of facing titantic class action suits do they simply face a government fine/pay off for a problem and get away clean? Not so here.

Remember, the systems in other countries were not designed by a market looking to meet people's demands. They were created by governments attempting to control people and manage revenue (and failing utterly as governments do).

[Musketeer]

Peetzakilla's point about insurance not saving money is generally correct. There is a notable exception though and it comes into defining the cost.

The insurance companies have negotiated rates for services that are committed to by the providers. Those can be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the walk off the street rate. There are multiple reasons for that as well though which have to do with showing their losses on charity jobs and the like. The bottom line though is as an insurance holder you benefit from a collective bargaining agreement on the cost of services in addition to having the financial coverage for catastrophic level events for which you would otherwise be unable to cover.

[NJgunowner]

Ok peetza, next year when your wife gets cancer or you have have a stroke and your looking at $150,000 medical bill will you sing the same tune?

You can sit there and roll your eyes and think I'm nuts, but it happens to people EVERY SINGLE DAY. A lot of people here claim to buy guns to protect their families. Insurance protects your family too, and you're more likely to need the insurance over the gun.

Musketeer, before I spent the last 10 years working for a hospital I worked for a Pharmaceutical company. Believe me, you aren't paying "the difference" for what other countries aren't paying. We made a profit on EVERY SINGLE ITEM we sold around the world. We made a profit from charging $25 in canada, and we made a huge profit when we sold that exact same drug from the exact same manufacturing facility here in the U.S. for $75. The reality is pharmaceutical companies wouldn't bother selling their products in these countries if they didn't make a profit from it.

I think I'm done with this thread now. It's one of those agree to disagree things that isn't going to be solved by an internet forum

[Brian Pfleuger]

Ok peetza, next year when your wife gets cancer or you have have a stroke and your looking at $150,000 medical bill will you sing the same tune?

If you read my posts, you'll see that I addressed catastrophic illness in the very first one. The reason that insurance cost stupid money is because it covers stupid things.

Cancer SHOULD be covered. My kids well-child visit should not. We could pay for cancer for a lot less money if we weren't insuring $7 antibiotics.


Oh, and the odds are excellent that most people could pay for their own cancer treatments in the long run... it would only take 9 years to raise the $150,000 difference... I'm 18 years into "adulthood". Insurance would have cost me $259,000 in this time.

Problem is, we don't prepare or save. We just pay for insurance.... it's a lot more expensive, but it's really easy.

[Musketeer]

Profit may be made on $25 drugs in Canada which sell for $75 in America but if they could charge $50 in Canada on an open market we may get to pay $50 here.

The governments a barely smart enough to allow some profit for drugs but they think limiting the profit to what Rey deal fair is reasonable. We pay a whopping profit burden here to account for the reduced profit elsewhere.

[NJgunowner]

Ok, I'm really done after this... I promise!

We'll have to see it from different points of view Peetza. I pay $600 a year for medical, dental, prescription, and eye care. I also pay $400 a year for $200,000 in life insurance. But I work for a non profit hospital. Before you think it still comes out of my pay check, I'm still well above the industry standard for my job so I can't complain. If I wasn't I'd have left years ago.

So what you want is tier's of coverage. You want major stuff only you pay X, you want everything you pay XX. Makes sense.

Musketeer, did you even think about that one before you typed it? You concede they made a profit... then say they HAVE to charge more here to make an even BIGGER profit? So it's fair that in country X they make a 30% profit (fair by most standards) and here they 200% profit? There's something morally wrong there.

Think about it.

Btw, I'm not arguing about whether government should mandate health insurance because the healthcare law as written sucks. I'm arguing why insurance is a good idea. Although I think they need to regulate the insurance companies. Some of their rules and regs are pretty bogus.

This is just awesome
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nt-health-law/

[nate45]

Peetza's assertions are dead on the money.

Whats really going on is that insurance companies(to protect their profits), politicians(to buy votes) and those who feel entitled by virtue of being born; want the well and successful to pay for everyones health care.

I already have major medical insurance to protect my assets and I pay for my 0 to 2 doctor visits a year out of pocket. If all but the most extreme examples, would be forced to take responsibility for their own lives and healthcare, like I do; things would be much better.

[Buzzcook]

That's an entirely invalid comparison. You are not required to buy car insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S. You are only required to buy car insurance if you desire to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. If you can't see the glaring difference there, I don't know what to tell you.

csmsss: Could you function in Orange Texas without a car? I doubt that 10% of the population of the US live and work in areas where a personal vehicle is unnecessary.

You're picking nits.

Besides using your argument a mandate would be constitutional for anyone seeking medical care. Six of one half a dozen of the other. You just removed universality, congratulations.

[youngunz4life]

it will most definately will end up in the highest supreme court(not definately but probably).

keep in mind that when things such as social security in the 30's or this healthcar bill as another example pass into law, changes are made but an actual repeal of this healthcare bill is extremely doubtful.

[LDSGJA]

I tend to agree that generally, a European (IE French) health care system would be better than what we have (costing less than half per capita) BUT, that doesn't mean that we could pull it off. I think in all likely-hood a universal HC system in the U.S. would cost more than our private one.`

Also, Insurance is not gambling, its the opposite of gambling. Gambling is taking on a risk for chance of reward, insurance is mitigating risk by taking a small but certain loss to avoid a chance of a catastrophic loss.

But because Health Insurance covers EVERYTHING its not insurance anymore, its a payment plan.

[Musketeer]

Yes, I thought it through. It comes down to determining what an acceptable profit is. That should be up to the market, not government.

I sell parts to a customer at a profit I consider too low and which I would normally not accept. It is all i can get though. I continue because I sell the same parts to another customer for much more meaning the reduced profit on the first is acceptable to me.

If the larger customer at the higher value went away I would discontinue sales to the lower profit one.

This has strayed from the COTUS aspects though and we should refocus.

[youngunz4life]

It will save money if the supreme court ends up ruling that we cannot force someone to get healthcare. Hawaii gave it up because it cost a ton, and Masschusetts has had a lot of problems with it.

[BlueTrain]

Well, here's a couple of more points about health insurance, and again, nothing to do with firearms. I'm afraid I can't make the connection.

When a given state makes regulations that either doctors or health insurers don't like, eventually those things become scarce in the state. Sure, there'll be some doctors around and you can still buy health insurance but things change. But I suppose that was the point. This isn't to say it would be much different with uniform national rules.

Also, and you probably already know this, at least if you are insured under a group plan, there is nothing standard about health insurance coverage. Every year, usually, the people buying the coverage go through an involved process to make an insurance plan, sometimes more than one, and so coverage can be all over the place.

And I imagine that the wide spread use of insurance would tend to make medical and pharmaceutical costs that much higher, come to think of it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by LDSGJA

Also, Insurance is not gambling, its the opposite of gambling. Gambling is taking on a risk for chance of reward, insurance is mitigating risk by taking a small but certain loss to avoid a chance of a catastrophic loss.

It's all in how you parse the words I suppose...

I walk into a casino and drop $20 on the roulette table.... I'm using $20 which I may or may not lose at the chance of profiting, say, $1000.

I buy health insurance...

I'm using $1,200 every month, which I may or may not lose, on the chance that I may "profit" $20,000 if I need gall bladder surgery, or $100,000 if I get cancer.

Fact is, the casino/gambler relationship is almost exactly like the insurance/insured relationship.

Originally Posted by LDSGJA

I tend to agree that generally, a European (IE French) health care system would be better than what we have (costing less than half per capita)

The "cost per capita" hides the real truth.... if you want to spend less on your car, buy a Hyundai instead of a Ferrari, but don't think you're getting the same car for less money.

See where this is going? Spend less, get less. They can not get the same treatment for less money. If it's cheaper because doctors make less money, they end up with doctors that are WORTH less money. If they pay less because the use old MRI machines, they get worse results from the MRIs. If they pay less because they pick and choose who gets what care, or there's a 2 year waiting list for mammograms, people are dying to reduce the cost.... it goes on and on.

[nate45]

When Davy Crockett was a member of the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. He gave an eloquent speech on the matter, which began...

Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Is it constitutional to endorse the use of threats, force and intimidation, to appropriate the monies of one group and give it to another?

Is it constitutional to mandate that the well and successful pay the medical expenses of their less fortunate fellow citizens?

I truly feel sympathy for those with catastrophic illness, just as Crockett felt sympathy for the widow. However, just because something is worthy of sympathy and charity, does not make the usurping of the constitution legal or correct.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ok - we are debating health care itself and funding mechanisms. Should we go back to whether the current law is constitutional as compared to how the French or Swedes fund it?

If not, let's close it.

Glenn

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well said, Nate.

[MTT TL]

Should we go back to whether the current law is constitutional as compared to how the French or Swedes fund it?

We should.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight. They made sure not to mess with military health plans because military and veterans lobbyists are quite powerful and well organized. But...

I have never been able to see the justification of forcing someone to do something just because they are alive. It just strikes me as anti-freedom an anti-American, as well as being unconstitutional. There is nothing else in this country that the US government is allowed to compel you to do, you always have a choice in the matter.

- Don't want car insurance? Don't drive on public roads.

- Don't want to send your kids to school? Home school.

You can still get drafted but we are talking about the defense of the homeland and state. The draft is a temporary measure, not for your whole life and there are plenty of ways to dodge it, and you can even still become pr... you get the idea. It is not a mandatory cradle to grave program that manages my life in a way in which I may not wish to be managed.

So why should I owe the government something just for being alive? Where is the constitutional authority granting that? My reading of the tenth amendment is a little different. I don't think there is much more to it than that.