SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by Beryana

I am making my comment (example) without actually knowing all the minute details of what is required to be considered 'insurance' per this mandate (like auto insurance that require certain minimum coverages?). I had 'insurance' a few years ago when I fell and hit my head on the floor. bruised my brain and knocked my spinal fluid production and absorption out of whack until it affected my vision (turns out I had 4x the normal level). Well, had to see specialists and all that with head MRIs. Turns out my 'insurance' only covered $100 of the office visit, $100 of the spinal tap, and $100 of the MRI - basically $300 of an approx. $6000 bill - which I'm still paying on 5 years later!

Personally, there needs to be tort reform before mandating everyone has to have insurance (or concurrent reforms/mandates). The insurance industry is even more 'broken' and not much is being done other than to make everyone buy their product of pay a tax penalty. . . . (The ENTIRE healthcare system is disfunctional!)

That is terrible, and I'm sorry that you have to go through that. I agree with you that many aspects of the healthcare system aren't working, and I'm particularly angered to hear about folks who HAVE coverage (in many cases, damn expensive coverage) and are still saddled with massive bills after a catastrophic incident.

What I would ideally like to see is a universal healthcare system that ensures a basic, free, level of coverage for all Americans, administered through a combination of private and public entities. For those who want a faster or fancier policy, they can purchase it, or have their employer provide it as part of a compensation package. And by "faster", I don't mean that you get your transplant or emergency surgery faster, I mean that you get your non-emergent doctors appointment with your preferred physician scheduled sooner. I mentioned that this law is not perfect, but I believe it is a step in the direction of universal healthcare, which would NEVER have passed if it were attempted in one fell swoop.

Many folks may be asking "what about cost?", and I think that's a very valid question. While I'm loathe to talk about life-saving technology that's "too expensive" to administer, I think there can be cost savings that we could realize through streamlined billing and files management, greater focus on early prevention and intervention of serious acute and chronic diseases, somehow reigning in the obesity epidemic, and a realistic, human approach to end-of-life and palliative care.

I heard a doctor on NPR recently say that money could be saved in many practices if doctors were allowed more time with each individual patient rather than sending them off to diagnostic tests right away. Instead, she argued, doctors are squeezed to see as many patients as possible in a day, so it's more cost-effective for them to see a patient for 5 minutes and then send them off to a multi-thousand dollar diagnostic test, rather than spend 30 minutes with the patient to narrow down the possible issues. (Those in the healthcare industry - please pipe up here; I've been fortunate to not have many of these rushed doctor visits and therefore can't vouch for this phenomenon personally).

I also recall President Clinton giving a speech a few years ago where he said that Canada spends less per capita on health care than we do in the U.S., and that their administrative costs per dollar were about half of what ours are (it was something like $0.15 to our $0.30 on the dollar spend in admin costs). This is purely remembered information, and I welcome corrections.

I think that we have a lot of public services like police, fire protection and education that are centered around the idea that our society is better served when each individual has certain protections and opportunities. To me, access to affordable, humane healthcare should be one of the primary pillars of a system that provides opportunity to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Many folks may be asking "what about cost?", and I think that's a very valid question. While I'm loathe to talk about life-saving technology that's "too expensive" to administer, I think there can be cost savings that we could realize through streamlined billing and files management, greater focus on early prevention and intervention of serious acute and chronic diseases, somehow reigning in the obesity epidemic, and a realistic, human approach to end-of-life and palliative care.

Here's an example of a cost problem that is easily fixed:

I was having stomach problems, and fell into the demographic at high risk for Crohn's. I went to the doctor, and he said that he wanted to do a colonoscopy. He then explained that the insurance company won't let him do that unless he put me through cheaper tests first. He also said that the cheaper test always comes back "inconclusive -- do the colonoscopy", so I should just go ahead and schedule the colonoscopy right away.

So, in the doctor's opinion, the cheaper test was NEVER able to rule out Crohn's, but the insurance company mandated that I have the cheaper test anyway. That is really dumb.

ETA: I honestly don't know who was right, between the doc and the ins. co. Insurance companies obviously want cheaper tests, but there are also doctors who over-treat. The point is that there are conflicting incentives, here, and best practices in medicine need to be the winner.

[IUHoosiergirl88]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/peopl...e-of-obamacare

I'm posting this out of sheer amusement...people ACTUALLY threatening to move to Canada (land of what they're running from, might I add) because of this ruling. Ignorance is bliss, right?

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by IUHoosiergirl88

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/peopl...e-of-obamacare

I'm posting this out of sheer amusement...people ACTUALLY threatening to move to Canada (land of what they're running from, might I add) because of this ruling. Ignorance is bliss, right?

I'm actually moving to England for school - and looking forward to being in the national health insurance system. I know that some of my medications are not covered (and not readily available there so I'm bringing them with), but from talking with other Americans there, they say it is a really good system for the basics (with a wait for non-emergency surgeries, etc).

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

That is terrible, and I'm sorry that you have to go through that. I agree with you that many aspects of the healthcare system aren't working, and I'm particularly angered to hear about folks who HAVE coverage (in many cases, damn expensive coverage) and are still saddled with massive bills after a catastrophic incident.

What I would ideally like to see is a universal healthcare system that ensures a basic, free, level of coverage for all Americans, administered through a combination of private and public entities. For those who want a faster or fancier policy, they can purchase it, or have their employer provide it as part of a compensation package. And by "faster", I don't mean that you get your transplant or emergency surgery faster, I mean that you get your non-emergent doctors appointment with your preferred physician scheduled sooner. I mentioned that this law is not perfect, but I believe it is a step in the direction of universal healthcare, which would NEVER have passed if it were attempted in one fell swoop.

Many folks may be asking "what about cost?", and I think that's a very valid question. While I'm loathe to talk about life-saving technology that's "too expensive" to administer, I think there can be cost savings that we could realize through streamlined billing and files management, greater focus on early prevention and intervention of serious acute and chronic diseases, somehow reigning in the obesity epidemic, and a realistic, human approach to end-of-life and palliative care.

I heard a doctor on NPR recently say that money could be saved in many practices if doctors were allowed more time with each individual patient rather than sending them off to diagnostic tests right away. Instead, she argued, doctors are squeezed to see as many patients as possible in a day, so it's more cost-effective for them to see a patient for 5 minutes and then send them off to a multi-thousand dollar diagnostic test, rather than spend 30 minutes with the patient to narrow down the possible issues. (Those in the healthcare industry - please pipe up here; I've been fortunate to not have many of these rushed doctor visits and therefore can't vouch for this phenomenon personally).

I also recall President Clinton giving a speech a few years ago where he said that Canada spends less per capita on health care than we do in the U.S., and that their administrative costs per dollar were about half of what ours are (it was something like $0.15 to our $0.30 on the dollar spend in admin costs). This is purely remembered information, and I welcome corrections.

I think that we have a lot of public services like police, fire protection and education that are centered around the idea that our society is better served when each individual has certain protections and opportunities. To me, access to affordable, humane healthcare should be one of the primary pillars of a system that provides opportunity to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

In regards to the bold maybe we should get away from seeing the doctor for minor illnesses and rely more on nurses and PA's for our treatments of minor illnesses and check-ups. IIRC that's what they do in Canada. They also make a smaller salary compared to American health professionals.

[Ghostwriter]

So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance

What if the Congress and Senate decides everyone should own a gun? They can now tax you/me/he/she for not owning said gun. There are now no limits to the power of the Federal Government. They must simply tax ones actions or inactions in order to exert control. Scary stuff. The Genie is out of the bottle.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance

What if the Congress and Senate decides everyone should own a gun? They can now tax you/me/he/she for not owning said gun. There are now no limits to the power of the Federal Government. They must simply tax ones actions or inactions in order to exert control. Scary stuff. The Genie is out of the bottle.

Ultimately, if the voters thought the gun law was a dumb law, they'd vote for someone else. Eventually, the government is accountable.

And of course there are limits. If you don't want a gun, just pay the tax. Easy peasy.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ultimately, if the voters thought the gun law was a dumb law, they'd vote for someone else. Eventually, the government is accountable.

And of course there are limits. If you don't want a gun, just pay the tax. Easy peasy.

Yes! I loved this part of Roberts' majority opinion: "[Justices] possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance

What if the Congress and Senate decides everyone should own a gun? They can now tax you/me/he/she for not owning said gun. There are now no limits to the power of the Federal Government. They must simply tax ones actions or inactions in order to exert control. Scary stuff. The Genie is out of the bottle.

See "Militia Act of 1792".

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

See "Militia Act of 1792".

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

Congress has had, for over two hundred years, the right to make someone buy something, and it has not caused the demise of society. Neither will today's ruling.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Congress has had, for over two hundred years, the right to make someone buy something, and it has not caused the demise of society. Neither will today's ruling.

Per Slate.com - not conservative by any means

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...alth_care.html

..."Some of the law's defenders have argued that Congress did just that when it passed the Militia Act of 1792, which compelled all "able-bodied" white men of certain ages to have a battle-ready musket or rifle. But that law hails from an era in which the United States were still young and our politicians wore white wigs. How good of a defense, really, is the Militia Act for the insurance mandate?

It's pretty flimsy. The constitutionality of the insurance mandate relies on the so-called Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." The Militia Act (actually two bills passed within a week of one another in May 1792), on the other hand, depends on the Militia Clause, which authorizes the government to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia." Because the two mandates have such different foundations, the constitutionality of one is essentially independent of the other.

Separate clauses aside, the Militia Act of 1792 would still be poor precedent for the insurance mandate, because Congress never enforced, or even meant to enforce, the law at the federal level. Lost in the health-care inflected discussion of the bill is its initial purpose: To standardize state militias and to authorize the president to call them into action. The government expected each state to achieve standardization through locally issued regulations, and to handle the gun-toting provision independently."...

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Nice talking point but it doesn't have much bearing on "precedent" as it relates to the health Care debate. The "Militia Act of 1903" replaced it with a state controlled National Guard.

So what you're saying, is that there was an act. That did stuff. And then LATER they passed another act that nullified the first or changed it in some ways?

NO WAY.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by agzg

So what you're saying, is that there was an act. That did stuff. And then LATER they passed another act that nullified the first or changed it in some ways?

NO WAY.

See above.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by agzg

So what you're saying, is that there was an act. That did stuff. And then LATER they passed another act that nullified the first or changed it in some ways?

NO WAY.