... That is why I think we must have some system that either makes sure everyone has coverage or a system that does not provide health care to those who don't have coverage unless they pay for it.

 

A 'system' that violates the constitution is not desirable regardless of its good intentions. Government CAN do something business can not and legally are not allowed to do - take on financial risk. Government - state governments - can set up function like Citizens for health care. It will be expensive and it may need considerable public funding (tax money) to run. But that may be the price we pay as a society. We pay it today one way or another. But ripping apart the current state based, mostly private system is insane - and unconstitutional and a dangerous consolidation of political and economic power.

A 'system' that violates the constitution is not desirable regardless of its good intentions. Government CAN do something business can not and legally are not allowed to do - take on financial risk. Government - state governments - can set up function like Citizens for health care. It will be expensive and it may need considerable public funding (tax money) to run. But that may be the price we pay as a society. We pay it today one way or another. But ripping apart the current state based, mostly private system is insane - and unconstitutional and a dangerous consolidation of political and economic power.

 

I guess we will find out if mandatory coverage is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court reviews it. That is what actually prompted this thread. My question to you is why would you prefer state government systems over one nationwide system? That seems more costly and inefficient to me. One of the driving cost reducers in business is centralization. Personally, I would much rather have one set of rules set by the federal government than 50 sets of rules. How would you like to run a business nationwide and have to manage following the rules in each state? I don't see any advantage to state government over federal government when it comes to a program that all the states need to have in place.

Heard today that the $2,500 per family in savings from Obama Care the president pledged will be seen..... by 2019. Well, White House deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle estimates that the average family will save around $2,000 by then. Four more years of Obama and I have to wonder what $2000 will be worth by 2019....

I guess we will find out if mandatory coverage is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court reviews it. That is what actually prompted this thread. My question to you is why would you prefer state government systems over one nationwide system? That seems more costly and inefficient to me. One of the driving cost reducers in business is centralization. Personally, I would much rather have one set of rules set by the federal government than 50 sets of rules. How would you like to run a business nationwide and have to manage following the rules in each state? I don't see any advantage to state government over federal government when it comes to a program that all the states need to have in place.

 

Theoretically, a single payer system should be most cost effective. But that is how companies justify mega-mergers to FTC. Economy of scale. But monopolies - whether established via companies or by government entities are rarely cost effective for the end consumer. So am anti-monopoly, keeping with the belief in Adam Smith and free market concept.

 

If the federal government wants to set up a hybrid government/private company to be the insurer of last resort and dumping ground for high cost/high risk people and fund it with a combination of public money (taxes) and fees to those insured - it can. That would be something that has precedent. Though considered unconstitutional by most the government has done this already - many times. Freddie, Fanny, flood insurance and numerous other 'programs'. But the 'individual mandate' and the tentacles the federal government have put into private insurance companies is a problem. Notice I support taxes to fund such a 'dumping ground' - society will have to pay - one way or the other. We might as well be up front with it instead of trying to hide it in private insurance bills as today. Also if it were funded via tax, like a federal sales tax, it would not run into the constitutional issues that individual mandate does. A federal tax on a transaction is legal today. Mandating purchase of product is not - at least at the federal level.

So you believe that with mandatory health insurance, health costs will decrease? I don't and there are few provisions in Obamacare to curtail of the rampant fraud in the current system. Fraud that, I believe, will increase under the new act. 90% of the current fraud is perpetrated on Medicare and Medicaid covered patients.

 

I agree with you, especially about the fraud issues taking place between Medicaid and Medicare patients. I do believe that Obamacare will probably make some improvements, but not what many are hoping for.

Theoretically, a single payer system should be most cost effective. But that is how companies justify mega-mergers to FTC. Economy of scale. But monopolies - whether established via companies or by government entities are rarely cost effective for the end consumer. So am anti-monopoly, keeping with the belief in Adam Smith and free market concept.

 

If the federal government wants to set up a hybrid government/private company to be the insurer of last resort and dumping ground for high cost/high risk people and fund it with a combination of public money (taxes) and fees to those insured - it can. That would be something that has precedent. Though considered unconstitutional by most the government has done this already - many times. Freddie, Fanny, flood insurance and numerous other 'programs'. But the 'individual mandate' and the tentacles the federal government have put into private insurance companies is a problem. Notice I support taxes to fund such a 'dumping ground' - society will have to pay - one way or the other. We might as well be up front with it instead of trying to hide it in private insurance bills as today. Also if it were funded via tax, like a federal sales tax, it would not run into the constitutional issues that individual mandate does. A federal tax on a transaction is legal today. Mandating purchase of product is not - at least at the federal level.

 

it doesn't even have to be a single payer system or monopolistic. If you make the rules the same nationwide regardless of whther it is going to private insurers, the government or whoever, the system will be more cost efficient. One federal set of rules is much better than each state making their own.

Shouldn't mandatory health care pump more dollars into healthcare? Shouldn't it reduce risk cost by increasing the pool of insureds? Like I said, the US has the most people without coverage and the highest cost in the world. It seems having everyone covered is leading to lower costs in other nations.

 

Yes, it should, but it won't here. Primarily because we live in the most litigious country in the world. IMO, mandatory healthcare without tort reform will drive costs UP not down.

Yes, it should, but it won't here. Primarily because we live in the most litigious country in the world. IMO, mandatory healthcare without tort reform will drive costs UP not down.

:thumb:

Yes, it should, but it won't here. Primarily because we live in the most litigious country in the world. IMO, mandatory healthcare without tort reform will drive costs UP not down.

 

So if there were tort reform coupled with health care for everyone, would you be for that?

So if there were tort reform coupled with health care for everyone, would you be for that?

 

I'm all for health care reform and for providing for those who can't afford the current insurance structure, but the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ain't it. The name, itself, is a contradiction to it's contents. Forcing people to buy insurance they cannot afford, without addressing the inherent waist and fraud in the system does nothing for the people it is intended to protect. IMO, not addressing the amount of litigation and resulting malpractice insurance costs, is a disservice to all of us, while placing more burden upon us.