Health Reform Not Constitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
So basically a universal social health system would probably be constitutional, but the mandate for citizens to buy insurance probably is not.
Click to expand...
What should have happened was passage of a universal health system with an opt-out clause; if one purchases a private plan, one gets a refund of the taxes he/she would have paid to participate in the universal plan. This would be clearly constitutional under Congress' power of taxation. If it were set up properly, it would also have the pleasant side effect of forcing the public system to stay competitive.

IMHO the USA really needs some sort of public universal health system, but Congress overreached in trying to justify the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. The whole thing falls apart without an accompanying public option.
 
What should have happened was passage of a universal health system with an opt-out clause; if one purchases a private plan, one gets a refund of the taxes he/she would have paid to participate in the universal plan. This would be clearly constitutional under Congress' power of taxation. If it were set up properly, it would also have the pleasant side effect of forcing the public system to stay competitive.
Click to expand...
What SHOULD happen is that govenrment stay out of my personal affairs...

Why do I need health insurance of any sort? My family handles about 90% of our own healthcare. I can stitch up Junior and he can stitch me up. Meds for the dogs work fine for the humans and vice versa. Not everyone needs to go tot the shiny white room for every little boo boo.

So what is healthcare costing the average middle age (40-45) person these days? $5.00 per MONTH? any more than that and we couldn't afford it in the form of policy or taxes.

Brent
 
I guess Brent, the flip side of you not wanting health insurance, is the assumption by some that if you or yours face some extreme need - who picks up the tab?

Thus, if you get clobbered in a car wreck - do you have a card that says no care or should someone start very expensive care to save you?

That's the rationale for mandating insurance. If folks were willing to take the risk and be happy to pass on when their bank account was drained - then that would be their decision.

Voluntary insurance means that you get no state paid for care, when you exceed your own resources?

This comment is independent of whether the current plan is constitutional because of the mandate. As we pay taxes for the common defense - one could conceive of a theory of paying for the common health - does that need an amendment? Dunno? Not a lawyer - thank you.
 
I don't see how any of this relates to firearms. But see what you can get for $5 at the hospital. That won't even pay the deductible at our doctor, who happens to be Iranian. Good doctor, too. A woman. However, insurance is not gambling. And gambling is not insurance. And insurance does not eliminate risk. And gambling is risky, too, if you didn't know it already. Personally, I think government out to stay out of the gambling business, although there is precedent going back to colonial days.

If you can do without professional medical care, it doesn't bother me at all. However, a week ago my wife broke her kneecap on the job. I live in Virginia and we have discovered that worker's compensation is a joke here. Yes, be careful what you wish for. Anyway, we appreciate the availability of medical care and maybe you will too, someday.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
I guess Brent, the flip side of you not wanting health insurance, is the assumption by some that if you or yours face some extreme need - who picks up the tab?

Thus, if you get clobbered in a car wreck - do you have a card that says no care or should someone start very expensive care to save you?

That's the rationale for mandating insurance. If folks were willing to take the risk and be happy to pass on when their bank account was drained - then that would be their decision.
Click to expand...


You're quite correct about the rationale.... but that rationale misses several major points.

The example of a car accident is often used... but the simple truth is that health insurance doesn't generally cover car accidents, car insurance covers auto injuries, most often.

Similar examples are used about falling off ladders, getting hurt at work.... all (mostly) irrelevant. Home Owners and Workers Comp cover those injuries.

The truth is that most people will not get "upside down" on medical costs unless they have a catastrophic illness, like cancer.

This is particularly true of young people. Even having a baby and paying the entire cost, even a c-section, is cheaper than paying insurance. (I know first hand.)

Even healthy elderly folks can cover their own costs easier than they can afford insurance, until they get to the age where direct continuous medical intervention is necessary just to stay alive... again, it's not general health needs, it's "catastrophic".


There are many simple solutions that would solve almost all problems associated with today.

First, we need to get the idea out of peoples heads that your health insurance should cover EVERY SINGLE THING, EVER AND ALWAYS! Do you submit a bill for changing your cars oil to the insurance company? If your car needs a new gas cap does insurance pay for it? No! That would be ridiculous.... yet we expect our health insurance to pay the $45 well-baby visit or the $50 cough/cold visit with the $7 prescription. Equally ridiculous!

Second, there is positively no reason that health insurance companies can not compete across state lines. None whatsoever. Competition lowers prices. This is a problem that has been known for... decades?.... and NO ONE, Republican or Democrat has fixed it. The most obvious and glaring problem and it's been ignored, even strengthened, for decades.

Third, tort reform. Gazillion dollars law suits that garner $22.10 for the victims and millions for the lawyers. Also known for decades and also ignored and unfixed by both parties.

Fourth, promote "Catastrophy" plans. As I say, most people, especially the young, do not need "all-inclusive" health plans and those plans, in fact, almost never make financial sense. Most people would be better off with plans that only cover substantial, life-changing or ending illnesses.

Fifth, reforming the "non-payer" system. If all of the above were true, most people would VOLUNTARILY have reasonable coverage and would be willing and able to pay their own bills. Those who do not should not be able to "pass on the cost" to those who do. Yes, we need certain systems in place for the poor but simply not paying bills because you can get away with it, or it's "cheaper" to let someone else do it, is ridiculous.

All these things would not only work, they would be constitutional and supported by the masses.
 
Hogdogs your argument is silly. I got MRSA a few years ago and got to spend 5 days in the hospital. The bill was north of $20,000. Would you rather I have insurance to pay that, or have to get it from the government using your taxes?

People who believe they don't need insurance are probably already using Medicaid to pay the bill.

I paid $300 of that hospital stay, my insurance picked up the rest. I haven't paid $20k into my insurance plan yet and that's after 10 years, I figure another 15 years of paying should make us even :)

Insurance is one of those things you don't think you need... right up until you need it.
 
The purpose of insurance, among other things, is to prevent financial catastrophe--to the policyholder. And insurance, all insurance, works by spreading out the risk. And I've already made my comment about worker's compensation insurance. It apparently just doesn't work in some states for some reason.

Furthermore, insurance wouldn't work if only those in grave danger of needing it bought it. That might sound dense but think of flood insurance. Everyone knows where it floods--same places it always has--yet people still insist on being able to build in those places and still expect to be able to insure the property, which lenders prudently require. You do know who you ultimately buy flood insurance from, don't you? Whole life insurance is easiest to explain, because guess what the risk of dying is?

Anyhow, it isn't difficult to have a catastrophe and any talk about insurance is probably missing the point, which is that health care is very expensive. Why that is so, should be the question.
 
peetzakilla said:
Second, there is positively no reason that health insurance companies can not compete across state lines. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...

An issue with across state line insurance is that each state regulates it's insurance industry. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning. Selling across state lines would require uniform Federal regulation, taking away individual state rights to regulate insurance in their states, OR could cause clustering of insurance companies in state(s) with weaker insurance regulation.

Kinda like how patent lawsuits are filed in places like Federal Eastern District of Texas, it's the numbers, patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 nationwide. If I'm a company that 19% advantage is massive incentive to move any cases to that district.
 
The way to keep 1,500 pages of law from being declared unconstitutional based on one section is to write multiple shorter laws!

Seriously, it was ONE law that was voted on and signed. Would the law have passed if one section were removed? You can't know. Either a law is constitutional or it is not. Saying part of it isn't but the balance can stay is nonsense unless sections of the law were voted on separately. Politicians jam tons of garbage into a law to piggyback it along with the meat and potatoes because they know their little personal projects will be carried along. If the courts did as required more often, tossing the entire law when one section of it is unconstitutional then we would have far less problems.

Those pushing this law forward intentionally cobbled it together for a single all encompassing vote. It is ONE law.
 
Blue has a point.

The question should be why is our health costs is so much higher than in other countries and how do we fix it. Health costs have spiraled out of control here. Most countries regulate the cost of medication to prevent price gouging. The pharmaceutical companies still make a VERY healthy profit in those places. Yet here, they can charge whatever they want. You can claim free enterprise, but come on! Meds that costs canada $50 cost $150 here. That's just nuts.

I work for a hospital. The main reason a hospital visit costs so much is we have to cover "charity care". That would be people without insurance who default on the bill. The Medicare and Medicaid payments we get usually don't even cover cost, so we have to make up the rest somehow. This is why you're seeing a push to get more people covered by insurance. Less charity care means hospitals don't have to charge as much to keep the lights on.
 
An issue with across state line insurance is that each state regulates it's insurance industry. California, for instance, says all insurers have to cover treatments for lead poisoning, while other states let insurers decide whether to cover lead poisoning. Selling across state lines would require uniform Federal regulation, taking away individual state rights to regulate insurance in their states, OR could cause clustering of insurance companies in state(s) with weaker insurance regulation.
Click to expand...

Or you could simply require any company providing coverage to those residing in a particular state to be required to meet all regulations set forth by that state.

If a company in state A wants to sell insurance to residents of state B then any coverage offered to them must meet state B's regulations. If the company does not like it then they do not have to offer it. If the people do not likethe limited selection in their state then they can petition THEIR state to change their regulations. If politicians in that state ignore the problem then let the people replace them.

No federal government is needed!
 
NJgunowner said:
Hogdogs your argument is silly. I got MRSA a few years ago and got to spend 5 days in the hospital. The bill was north of $20,000. Would you rather I have insurance to pay that, or have to get it from the government using your taxes?
Click to expand...


How many times in your life as that been necessary? Insurance in NY state cost better than $1200 a month to cover a family. That's $14,400 a year. Considering that I spend an average of about $100 a month on medical costs, I could be putting $1000 a month in the bank and be money ahead, so long as that $20,000 bill happens an average of less than every 20 months.


People need to understand something.... you DO NOT, CAN NOT save money, on the long haul, by having insurance. Insurance companies make a PROFIT. That means that you are paying MORE than you cost. Yes, you might get lucky and save money, most of us will not. Check the profits of the insurance companies. We would almost all be better off paying our own bills.


If I saved the amount of money that insurance costs I would be many, many thousands of dollars ahead. $14,400 a year, for the 4 3/4 years since I had my first kid, minus the roughly $15,000 I've paid in that time would puts me.... $67,000 AHEAD of the game.



The government should be in the business of FIXING these cost problems, not mandating people to buy things that cost them MORE, individually and as a whole, than not buying things.
 
Last edited:
Most countries regulate the cost of medication to prevent price gouging. The pharmaceutical companies still make a VERY healthy profit in those places. Yet here, they can charge whatever they want. You can claim free enterprise, but come on! Meds that costs canada $50 cost $150 here. That's just nuts
Click to expand...

1. Are we assuming that those other countries are regulating the production of knock off drugs which are benefitting from the significant investment made by the creator?

2. By reducing the market price in certain nations artificially those nations ensure the USA will have to pay higher in order to make up the lost potential earnings. Yes, we are underwriting the medications for other nations.

3. And what liability protection is afforded those pharmaceutical companies in those nations with lower prices? Instead of facing titantic class action suits do they simply face a government fine/pay off for a problem and get away clean? Not so here.

Remember, the systems in other countries were not designed by a market looking to meet people's demands. They were created by governments attempting to control people and manage revenue (and failing utterly as governments do).
 
Peetzakilla's point about insurance not saving money is generally correct. There is a notable exception though and it comes into defining the cost.

The insurance companies have negotiated rates for services that are committed to by the providers. Those can be SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the walk off the street rate. There are multiple reasons for that as well though which have to do with showing their losses on charity jobs and the like. The bottom line though is as an insurance holder you benefit from a collective bargaining agreement on the cost of services in addition to having the financial coverage for catastrophic level events for which you would otherwise be unable to cover.
 
Ok peetza, next year when your wife gets cancer or you have have a stroke and your looking at $150,000 medical bill will you sing the same tune?

You can sit there and roll your eyes and think I'm nuts, but it happens to people EVERY SINGLE DAY. A lot of people here claim to buy guns to protect their families. Insurance protects your family too, and you're more likely to need the insurance over the gun.

Musketeer, before I spent the last 10 years working for a hospital I worked for a Pharmaceutical company. Believe me, you aren't paying "the difference" for what other countries aren't paying. We made a profit on EVERY SINGLE ITEM we sold around the world. We made a profit from charging $25 in canada, and we made a huge profit when we sold that exact same drug from the exact same manufacturing facility here in the U.S. for $75. The reality is pharmaceutical companies wouldn't bother selling their products in these countries if they didn't make a profit from it. :rolleyes:

I think I'm done with this thread now. It's one of those agree to disagree things that isn't going to be solved by an internet forum :)
 
Ok peetza, next year when your wife gets cancer or you have have a stroke and your looking at $150,000 medical bill will you sing the same tune?
Click to expand...

If you read my posts, you'll see that I addressed catastrophic illness in the very first one. The reason that insurance cost stupid money is because it covers stupid things.

Cancer SHOULD be covered. My kids well-child visit should not. We could pay for cancer for a lot less money if we weren't insuring $7 antibiotics.


Oh, and the odds are excellent that most people could pay for their own cancer treatments in the long run... it would only take 9 years to raise the $150,000 difference... I'm 18 years into "adulthood". Insurance would have cost me $259,000 in this time.

Problem is, we don't prepare or save. We just pay for insurance.... it's a lot more expensive, but it's really easy.
 
Profit may be made on $25 drugs in Canada which sell for $75 in America but if they could charge $50 in Canada on an open market we may get to pay $50 here.

The governments a barely smart enough to allow some profit for drugs but they think limiting the profit to what Rey deal fair is reasonable. We pay a whopping profit burden here to account for the reduced profit elsewhere.
 
Ok, I'm really done after this... I promise!

We'll have to see it from different points of view Peetza. I pay $600 a year for medical, dental, prescription, and eye care. I also pay $400 a year for $200,000 in life insurance. But I work for a non profit hospital. Before you think it still comes out of my pay check, I'm still well above the industry standard for my job so I can't complain. If I wasn't I'd have left years ago.

So what you want is tier's of coverage. You want major stuff only you pay X, you want everything you pay XX. Makes sense.

Musketeer, did you even think about that one before you typed it? You concede they made a profit... then say they HAVE to charge more here to make an even BIGGER profit? So it's fair that in country X they make a 30% profit (fair by most standards) and here they 200% profit? There's something morally wrong there.

Think about it.

Btw, I'm not arguing about whether government should mandate health insurance because the healthcare law as written sucks. I'm arguing why insurance is a good idea. Although I think they need to regulate the insurance companies. Some of their rules and regs are pretty bogus.

This is just awesome :D
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...andating-gun-ownership-make-point-health-law/
 
Last edited:
Peetza's assertions are dead on the money.

Whats really going on is that insurance companies(to protect their profits), politicians(to buy votes) and those who feel entitled by virtue of being born; want the well and successful to pay for everyones health care.

I already have major medical insurance to protect my assets and I pay for my 0 to 2 doctor visits a year out of pocket. If all but the most extreme examples, would be forced to take responsibility for their own lives and healthcare, like I do; things would be much better.
 
That's an entirely invalid comparison. You are not required to buy car insurance as a condition of residence in the U.S. You are only required to buy car insurance if you desire to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. If you can't see the glaring difference there, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

csmsss: Could you function in Orange Texas without a car? I doubt that 10% of the population of the US live and work in areas where a personal vehicle is unnecessary.

You're picking nits.

Besides using your argument a mandate would be constitutional for anyone seeking medical care. Six of one half a dozen of the other. You just removed universality, congratulations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top