U.S. Debt discussion

[Calgaryborn]

The news today is that the appeals court has rejected the manditory nature of ObamaCare. Next stop is the Supreme court.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...77B4J320110812

I know this isn't directly economic news but, I think many of you are underestimating the effect ObamaCare is having on business. It is a near future obligation that is going to cost them money. How much it costs depends on what conditions the Government determines to cover and how much the payers into the system will have to pay for those who don't contribute.


On a side note it is interesting comparing the two Judges reasoning for rejecting manditory health care with the one who supported it. The Majority reasoned that the Constitution disallowed the Federal government from forcing people to buy something they might not want. The Minority reasoned that the governments powers have been expanding in this area in the last few years and therefore should be allowed. The first two see the Constitution as originalists wereas the lone Judge sees it as a living document that was evolving along with society.

[Azure]

The problem is that healthcare costs rise if not everyone buys into the system, because at some point, everyone will still use the system.

I'm not sure how else you fix that problem outside of forcing everyone to buy insurance.

Everyone already pays for SS don't they?

[jammies]

"Obamacare" is a stupid word coinage that has finally surpassed the annoying factor expressed by the previous winner, "Brangelina".

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

The problem is that healthcare costs rise if not everyone buys into the system, because at some point, everyone will still use the system.

I'm not sure how else you fix that problem outside of forcing everyone to buy insurance.

Everyone already pays for SS don't they?

I think the attempt to bring it nationwide in the current economic and political climate was foolish to be honest, I think the feds would have been better off encouraging the individual states to bring in comprehensive care on a state by state basis, create a federal state partnership model that the blue states could adopt, when the dumb shmoes in the largely poorer and less insured red states saw it in action they would eventually demand it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think the attempt to bring it nationwide in the current economic and political climate was foolish to be honest, I think the feds would have been better off encouraging the individual states to bring in comprehensive care on a state by state basis, create a federal state partnership model that the blue states could adopt, when the dumb shmoes in the largely poorer and less insured red states saw it in action they would eventually demand it.

I agree. The time to do something is when the economy is moving.

Obama could have pushed States to allow their citizens to buy insurance out of State. He could have shrunk the cost of health insurance by limiting lawsuits for medical malpractice. He could of addressed medicare fraud.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I agree. The time to do something is when the economy is moving.

Obama could have pushed States to allow their citizens to buy insurance out of State. He could have shrunk the cost of health insurance by limiting lawsuits for medical malpractice. He could of addressed medicare fraud.

Allowing people to buy insurance across states, without having baseline coverage requirements, is tantamount to relegating those with chronic medical needs to bankruptcy.

You seriously need to think about the stuff that you post. Speaking as someone in the healthcare area, you're just parroting right wing talking points without any understanding of their repercussions.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Allowing people to buy insurance across states, without having baseline coverage requirements, is tantamount to relegating those with chronic medical needs to bankruptcy.

You seriously need to think about the stuff that you post. Speaking as someone in the healthcare area, you're just parroting right wing talking points without any understanding of their repercussions.

I think it is more "the angry Muslim" rather than the "enlightened doctor" that makes you attack my posts so often but, whatever. Obviously if States were to open up their borders to out of State insurers they would have to set standards for coverage. Most States already do this.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think it is more "the angry Muslim" rather than the "enlightened doctor" that makes you attack my posts so often but, whatever. Obviously if States were to open up their borders to out of State insurers they would have to set standards for coverage. Most States already do this.

No, some of your posts are refuted because they are half truths or lacking in detail.

You spew right wing ideology and hope it sticks or someone doesn't call you out and when someone does, you go ahead and get into an ad hominem attack.

I hope we can keep this from degenerating. There are some really good insights even from you.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think it is more "the angry Muslim" rather than the "enlightened doctor" that makes you attack my posts so often but, whatever. Obviously if States were to open up their borders to out of State insurers they would have to set standards for coverage. Most States already do this.

I'll disregard the garbage in your opening sentence.

In regards to your comment that "Most States already do this," I'll point out that is the definition of the problem. What you fail to understand is that states do not have standardized requirements. This will simply mean that the state with the lowest requirements will suck up the pool of the healthy, leaving those with chronic disease to pay oversized and crippling premiums.

And this isn't theoretical, as this type of "incentive" works. Why do you think the majority of US companies are incorporated in Delaware?

I really, really urge you to actually read up on the mechanics of these things that you propose. Knowledge is power, but you're just throwing out slogans.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'll disregard the garbage in your opening sentence.

In regards to your comment that "Most States already do this," I'll point out that is the definition of the problem. What you fail to understand is that states do not have standardized requirements. This will simply mean that the state with the lowest requirements will suck up the pool of the healthy, leaving those with chronic disease to pay oversized and crippling premiums.

And this isn't theoretical, as this type of "incentive" works. Why do you think the majority of US companies are incorporated in Delaware?

I really, really urge you to actually read up on the mechanics of these things that you propose. Knowledge is power, but you're just throwing out slogans.

Which is why you need a federal mandate on health care, with each state being responsible to look after their own system.

Purpose of the system being to provide universal care to combat the rising cost of people taking advantage of the system.

I'm not so sure a federally run healthcare program would work that well with 300 million people, and 50+ states to make it work in.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which is why you need a federal mandate on health care, with each state being responsible to look after their own system.

Purpose of the system being to provide universal care to combat the rising cost of people taking advantage of the system.

I'm not so sure a federally run healthcare program would work that well with 300 million people, and 50+ states to make it work in.

NM, misread who quoted who there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny to me, when you look at per capita on spending, the American's spend the most per person, and its not even close, for example the American's spend $7290.00 per person, and Norway was in second at about $4200 per person. The American's spend 16% of their NP on health care, the next closest was Germany at 10.4.

The solution shouldn't have been based around creating another unweildy government area built around insurance. The problem is obviously how they're spending money.

If you're going to spend that much then you might as well nationalize the health care system and control the costs.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which is why you need a federal mandate on health care, with each state being responsible to look after their own system.

Purpose of the system being to provide universal care to combat the rising cost of people taking advantage of the system.

I'm not so sure a federally run healthcare program would work that well with 300 million people, and 50+ states to make it work in.

Right, I thought the federal mandate part was obvious.

As the affordable care act is set up, the system need not be a homogenous one for all 50 states. It expressly allows providers to set up local cooperatives to manage the funds / define care. The framework for this is already being set up in my neck of the woods, which I've indicated earlier. Therefore, regional and state entities (and across states if they so choose) are free to tinker with the system to best suit their regional strengths / weaknesses.

The problem is that regardless of whether or not the ACA will eventually work, it suffers a legitimate chance to be smothered in the crib by people who know nothing about it or its provisions.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its funny to me, when you look at per capita on spending, the American's spend the most per person, and its not even close, for example the American's spend $7290.00 per person, and Norway was in second at about $4200 per person. The American's spend 16% of their NP on health care, the next closest was Germany at 10.4.

The solution shouldn't have been based around creating another unweildy government area built around insurance. The problem is obviously how they're spending money.

If you're going to spend that much then you might as well nationalize the health care system and control the costs.

Tough to argue against a government mandate when this is the free market approach.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'll disregard the garbage in your opening sentence.

In regards to your comment that "Most States already do this," I'll point out that is the definition of the problem. What you fail to understand is that states do not have standardized requirements. This will simply mean that the state with the lowest requirements will suck up the pool of the healthy, leaving those with chronic disease to pay oversized and crippling premiums.

And this isn't theoretical, as this type of "incentive" works. Why do you think the majority of US companies are incorporated in Delaware?

I really, really urge you to actually read up on the mechanics of these things that you propose. Knowledge is power, but you're just throwing out slogans.

If the State of Idaho sets a standard of coverage within the borders of their State an insurer from Delaware will have to meet that standard of coverage and service if they want to sell insurance in that State. It's not complicated.

Sure the healthy will take the best priced insurance for their needs. Nothing wrong with that. Companies will balance the coverage with the needs of their work force just like Canadian companies do with their extended medical.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

No, some of your posts are refuted because they are half truths or lacking in detail.

You spew right wing ideology and hope it sticks or someone doesn't call you out and when someone does, you go ahead and get into an ad hominem attack.

I hope we can keep this from degenerating. There are some really good insights even from you.

You don't have to agree with me; in fact no body has to but, I've noticed a pattern with that particular poster and I'm not going to pretend he doesn't have a problem.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You don't have to agree with me; in fact no body has to but, I've noticed a pattern with that particular poster and I'm not going to pretend he doesn't have a problem.

What about the white, right wing christian who also thinks the same thing about half the stuff you post?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If the State of Idaho sets a standard of coverage within the borders of their State an insurer from Delaware will have to meet that standard of coverage and service if they want to sell insurance in that State. It's not complicated.

Sure the healthy will take the best priced insurance for their needs. Nothing wrong with that. Companies will balance the coverage with the needs of their work force just like Canadian companies do with their extended medical.

Yeah, that seals it. The bolded part confirms that you do not know what it is you're advocating. That is not what is entailed when people talk about "selling insurance across state lines" in the US. Further, your statement demonstrates that you do not know even the most basic tenets of the current US system.

So yeah, you're right: when you're not encumbered by the need to know how something works, then fixing it is "not complicated."

Good luck man.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What about the white, right wing christian who also thinks the same thing about half the stuff you post?

Your missing the point: I have no problem people disagreeing with me. If I did I would have left this site long ago. I was just identifying the motive behind one particular one. I'm going to leave it at that for now.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your missing the point: I have no problem people disagreeing with me. If I did I would have left this site long ago. I was just identifying the motive behind one particular one. I'm going to leave it at that for now.

What are his/her motives? I am missing what you are getting at? He/she calls you out for not being uninformed and parroting right wing talking points without understanding the repercussions. Sounds like a fair comment that at least I could agree with.

You response is that he/she is some nonsense about "angry muslim". Not sure where that came from. What are your motives?

I guess since you're leaving it at that for now you can dodge another question.