Matthew on 23/3/2010 at 17:22
They'll make you have your car conform to safety standards
Jason Moyer on 23/3/2010 at 17:45
Can anyone explain how the federal government can pass legislation relating to an industry that doesn't allow for interstate competition?
I'm not really for or against socialized medicine, but it's always seemed to me that the way to create affordable health care would be to allow insurance companies to compete which each other instead of being limited to offering their services on a regional basis. People might laugh about the states suing the federal government, but I think in this case there's a really good chance that the bill will be killed on a states' rights basis.
demagogue on 23/3/2010 at 17:46
@gunsmoke, but meant to be a general comment anyway... Insurance isn't about betting on whether you'll get sick or not. It's about hedging shared risk across a collective pool and it increases social welfare across the board. It's not like some day-to-day market choice like which kind of cereal do I get, or what if I don't want cereal. Getting sick is like getting hit with a flood. You never choose it; and you need to rebuild and get back to normal life or you have a measure of social dysfunction that you don't have for routine market choices.
On that note, when you get sick and don't have insurance, it's affecting not just you but other people too ... most directly if you have family to support, but also you can't go to work or aren't as productive for a longer period, you're crushed by debt for a period and aren't spending, and when you are spending it's for ghetto-medicine that's not developing the best sector to build the economy, if you have to get emergency care you can't pay then it's a public expense... now integrate all those things that by a few million people.
Rug Burn Junky on 23/3/2010 at 18:04
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Can anyone explain how the federal government can pass legislation relating to an industry that doesn't allow for interstate competition?
Because of the totality of the healthcare industry, there are obvious interstate effects even with the intrastate regulation of insurance companies.
Quote:
I'm not really for or against socialized medicine, but it's always seemed to me that the way to create affordable health care would be to allow insurance companies to compete which each other instead of being limited to offering their services on a regional basis.
That's not really realistic. Beyond the general problems of healthcare itself in a free market, there are competition problems in insurance that don't lend themselves to solution by free market mechanisms. There is a misalignment of incentives - providing better service (actually paying claims) leads to lower profit margins, and puts one at a competitive disadvantage. So you need some sort of backstop to prevent the abuses and ward off a race to the bottom in coverage. Now, if you have a state that actually enacts these protections, insurance companies in other states without those protections have an advantage. Competition across state lines will eventually result in a concentration of insurance companies in the states that have the least restrictive regulations, leading to an exacerbation of the abuse problems. Interstate competition is simply not feasable without the same national protections contained in this bill.
Quote:
People might laugh about the states suing the federal government, but I think in this case there's a really good chance that the bill will be killed on a states' rights basis.
I'll readily concede that there is a non-trivial chance that the individual mandate may be overturned - I wouldn't put anything past the Roberts block as far as upturning settled law. Even that is difficult to foresee, however: It was very narrowly tailored as a tax which is well within Congress's powers.
But there is a zero percent chance that the major reforms of the bill itself are overturned. That is in fact laughable.
Phatose on 23/3/2010 at 18:20
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Can anyone explain how the federal government can pass legislation relating to an industry that doesn't allow for interstate competition?
I'm not really for or against socialized medicine, but it's always seemed to me that the way to create affordable health care would be to allow insurance companies to compete which each other instead of being limited to offering their services on a regional basis. People might laugh about the states suing the federal government, but I think in this case there's a really good chance that the bill will be killed on a states' rights basis.
Seems highly unlikely to me. The reality that you can be injured in another state and have your insurance cover it should be enough to establish health insurance as interstate commerce, at least given the broad definition used to enforce drug legislation, firearm control and whatnot.
As for competition....well, I have serious doubt about the free market's ability to reach the outcome people actually want. Insurance companies won't take on coverage of a pre-existing condition, and if you develop a condition only to find out that your insurance company sucks, you're thus screwed.
The net effect of the market becomes providing the best looking coverage for the lowest price possibly, while denying coverage as much as possible when claims are made for anything long-term.
Oh, look, sniped. And sniped by someone who did a much better job replying then I did.
Stitch on 23/3/2010 at 20:16
While I don't think any current poll really means that much--far more important is public opinion once the effects of this bill have been felt for awhile--but the latest Gallup poll finds the bill's approval (
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/Slim-Margin-Americans-Support-Healthcare-Bill-Passage.aspx) enjoying a post-passing bounce. Not exactly a strong margin to be sure, but it does shoot down the idiot non-starter of a talking point that nobody wants this bill.
gunsmoke on 23/3/2010 at 20:55
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
No-one is going to lock you up, you're just going to have to pay a bit more in taxes. Why? Because
when you eventually DO get sick and suddenly decide you need more healthcare than just what you can afford out of pocket, you'll have to enter the high risk pool. The high risk pool only works if it's properly funded. It can only be properly funded if it's subsidized in some way by the people very people who will use it, ie. you.
There's not much more to say other than that you need to re-read fett's rather poignant post and grow up.
Wah. I know I am not going to jail. It was a joke.
Anyway, so fett has an issue. Not my problem. I am not a communist. I can afford to support myself and just because a certain member here has a problem isn't going to change my mind. I Don't want to pay for other people's problems. Point. Fucking. Blank. And if I have a traumatic injury, guess what? I won't go fucking whining to Obama about it. I'll man the fuck up and whatever happens happens. Remember...IT IS MY CHOICE NOT TO HAVE IT. If I was so worried about my healthcare future... I would buy the fucking shit. I don't need it.
Rug Burn Junky on 23/3/2010 at 21:06
This is an example of simple, selfish ignorance.
Al_B on 23/3/2010 at 21:39
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
IT IS MY CHOICE NOT TO HAVE IT
This is a sensible attitude if you have full control over your health. However, the problem with that argument is that you don't. Even if you take complete care of youself you could be hit by a car tomorrow and left with expensive, life-long conditions that many people couldn't afford.
There are many things in life that are bigger than just yourself - taxes, pension contributions, council payments, car and house insurance - TV license / NHS contributions in the UK. It's not just about paying the exact amount that you use at any one point in time, and yes - there are those that take advantage of the system. However, that doesn't mean that the system itself is wrong - their attitude and behaviour is and that is the problem that needs to be corrected.
Epos Nix on 23/3/2010 at 21:48
Well then I s'pose we should just trust this thing before it even goes into effect just because a select few of you guys think it is "the right thing to do".
Let's just hope that those low-income and high-risk individuals don't visit the doctor too much, rapidly draining high-risk reserves and requiring additional taxes from each of us or risk toppling the entire scheme. But that wouldn't happen, would it? :erg:
