Universal Health Care...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I don't think providing for the common defence and general welfare are separate powers granted by clause 1. Those are the restrictive clauses on the reasons that Congress can tax.

Yeah, probably you're right, so maybe it's not as applicable as I thought since it's not really a tax. I'm no Constitutional scholar.

[All_In 0]

Assume that the individual mandate stands on the assumption that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce (this seems to be the primary arguments why it is OK).Say that mandatory gym memberships are being pushed on the basis that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce.Can you say one is OK and the other isn't? Not from a practical standpoint, not from a "that's a law I want passed" standpoint, but from a consistent legal standpoint.

paranoid much? better cling to your religion and guns.

[hblask 1]

paranoid much? better cling to your religion and guns.

[The Ocho 970]

I am stealing this. I love it!

[Dread Aidan 8]

I am stealing this. I love it!

Wait, is it too late for me to also steal it?

[All_In 0]

Wait, is it too late for me to also steal it?

i am stealing it as well.

[Balloon guy 158]

i am stealing it as well.

It will save us all a lot of time if you just put it in your signature.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Very good Forbes article. How Employer-Sponsored Insurance Drives Up Health Costs

A new study in Health Affairs is attracting attention for its depiction of how powerful hospitals are extracting “steep payment increases” from insurers. But what the study really tells us is how much the exceptional cost of American health insurance is caused by our system’s original sin: the fact that, due to a quirk in the federal tax code, most of us don’t buy insurance for ourselves, but instead have it bought on our behalf by our employers.“In the constant attention paid to what drives health costs,” the authors begin, “only recently has scrutiny been applied to the power that some health care providers, particularly dominant hospital systems, wield to negotiate higher payment rates from insurers.” If you’re a regular reader of The Apothecary, you know from where some of that scrutiny has come. And hence, you won’t be surprised to learn that the Health Affairs study does indeed find that powerful hospital systems have the power to dictate prices to insurers.ARTICLE CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE

[hblask 1]

Very good Forbes article. How Employer-Sponsored Insurance Drives Up Health Costs

Yep, if there is one health care reform that congress were to do that would have the biggest positive impact, it would be to eliminate the employer benefit and give it to individuals. This alone would, over the course of 5-10 years, reshape the market in ways that inspire innovation and competition. If they also included interstate competition, it would be the equivalent of deregulating the airlines and trucking in the 70s.

[phlegm 6]

Yep, if there is one health care reform that congress were to do that would have the biggest positive impact, it would be to eliminate the employer benefit and give it to individuals. This alone would, over the course of 5-10 years, reshape the market in ways that inspire innovation and competition. If they also included interstate competition, it would be the equivalent of deregulating the airlines and trucking in the 70s.

Not sure this is what bob had in mind.

[hblask 1]

Not sure this is what bob had in mind.

I'm not sure either, but it is the title of the article and the most important point. Ever since the first distortion started, the government has been chasing it's mistakes by doubling down on them instead of fixing them.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

My point in posting that link was to show how bad linking health care to employment is.Whether your healthcare system is private or a public/private hybrid linking it to employment has no advantages that I can see and some horrible negatives. It should be obvious to everybody that making people stay in a particular job so they can keep their health insurance is bad public policy but that article also showed how it increases costs which isn't something that is as obvious.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

.

[akoff 0]

as an employer i would be thrilled to not be forced into providing healthcare. if the choice remains between washington and employers providing it - we'll continue.the key is at least you are required to have a job and in theory produce something to have insurance...as opposed to just being born and living.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The system is so screwed up.http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/27/why-do-hospitals-charge-4423-for-250-ct-scans-blame-arizona-republicans/

[brvheart 1,752]

The system is so screwed up.http://www.forbes.co...na-republicans/

Where do you find these terrible articles, Bob? Do you get like a list of lying, leftist authors from the "conservative Canadian" mother-ship or something?That headline is awesome... especially since it holds that special distinction of having nothing to do with the actual article AND the fact that it's a lie. Well done, leftist opinion submitter.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Forbes Twitter feed.I just ignored the headline talking about Republicans since it just as easily could have been Democrats. It's the system that's broken when the lobbyists control the agenda like they do.

[akoff 0]

Where do you find these terrible articles, Bob?

this is exactly what i was thinking.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

The headline is bad. The article is good and if you take the time to read it I would be surprised if anybody who supports a free market disagrees with the substance of it.

[AmScray 355]

Can anyone refute the substance of that article?

[CaneBrain 95]

Can anyone refute the substance of that article?

The headline is inflammatory therefore the substance is irrelevant. The article is really talking about one Republican who is frustrated that other Republicans are acting like morons. Which is basically how all moderate GOPers must feel right now.

[hblask 1]

The headline is bad.The article is good and if you take the time to read it I would be surprised if anybody who supports a free market disagrees with the substance of it.

This article is why I'm not optimistic, even with it looking like Obamacare is going to be shot down. Even if the R's were to control all three branches, they don't have the slightest clue about how to fix the system, because they are all in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies.The number one problem is health care is the lack of pricing information and pricing pressure. For the R's to stop a bill that moves toward solving that is a reason to just disband the Republican party completely.

[AmScray 355]

The number one problem is health care is the lack of pricing information and pricing pressure.

I don't think it's the #1 problem, but it's a huge, huge problem.The question is, how do we go forward and build a better system?As is standard, you take the high-flying ideological position, whereby if we just revert to anarchistic grass roots, the magic powers of economic equilibria will make it so CT scans will be $5.99 in drive-thrus and doctors will take chickens and apple pies as payment for housecalls. This is obviously retarded, but you predicate the logical leap of faith on the basis of a very credible complaint, so its understandably hard to shake you off it. Also, you live in what I can only presume is somewhere in Rural/Exurban Minnesota, where social conditions are 'quant' to say the least. With this as your only point of reference, it makes sense that you can put your stock in laughably impractical idealism without realizing how unworkable it is in the world the rest of us live in. It's the equivalent of taking advice from Canadians. We have an entire world to look at, as far as how other systems work.A lot of very advanced civilizations have determined that things like roadways, national defense, health care, police and fire services, bridges, waterways should be managed as a function of the state, since allowing 'free markets' doesn't build that interstate or take care of human life who the health care corporations determine will cost them too much to insure.The question boils down to, how should we move forward?We could implement your ideas, remove all price constraints, then wait 20 years for the system to shake itself out, determine the winners and losers and arrive at something resembling a free market balance, but there is no guarantee- or even distant implication- that the endgame will produce anything resembling an optimal outcome, in terms of solving the problems we face (without even bothering to consider the Pandoras box of new problems and unintended consequences this might give rise to)Or, we can look at all the other countries that have a state run health option and perhaps acknowledge that like roads and police, this is a service where the unique powers (and ideological principles) of a Democratic state can achieve a better outcome than corporate managers maximizing shareholder value? And yes, we definitely do need to get the political influence of Pharma and Corporate Health Care out of the mix. We need to let free markets determine pricing, but fixing 'that problem' doesn't fix 'the problem'?

[hblask 1]

We have an entire world to look at, as far as how other systems work.

This is one of the key factors in my belief. We can look at a number of things across the world: level of govt control vs quality of care vs percentage of innovation by country vs access vs any number of other factors.Pretending you can pick and choose the best from each system is just silly, it's college freshman thinking. It's all about tradeoffs. For me, constant innovation, price competition and the gaps filled by lightweight social programs easily beats stagnation, rationing and copying the rich countries as a solution.

[hblask 1]

A lot of very advanced civilizations have determined that things like roadways, national defense, health care, police and fire services, bridges, waterways should be managed as a function of the state, since allowing 'free markets' doesn't build that interstate or take care of human life who the health care corporations determine will cost them too much to insure.

Ah, the old "who will build the roads" ploy. Seriously, I thought you were a little more advanced in your thinking than that.