Discussion in 'Community' started by pete, Mar 27, 2012.
I am so glad Australia has national healthcare.
My opinion is summed up in a quote from a Senatorial aide during the original congressional meetings
""You come out of these hearings and the number of interconnected, moving pieces going in and out of these bills is insane — the case for single-payer health insurance makes itself."
Likewise for the present debate over Constitutionality. I know single-payer in the USA was and remains a pipe-dream, but still, it's hard not to be disappointed in what we ended up getting. Obviously I'm happy that some of the most perverse practices pre-ACA are now illegal, but overall this bill seems to do little besides further entrench people into our fundamentally broken system. Also quite maddening is how transparently most people's opinions on the bill's legality(or lack thereof) are driven primarily by partisan motive(this applies obviously more to the Right than to the Left, but it's there on both sides). I personally hope the bill is overturned, but I'm not going to pretend it's because of any deeply held or informed conviction about its Constitutionality.
Because the money goes to private health insurers, not the government.
But then taxation is beyond the requirement of government if its function is solely to protect rights, are you opposed to taxation?
My tax pays for my healthcare, it's just part of the service that government provides for me and that I think it has a duty to provide. The government should maintain society and look after people and protect them from harm, we elect it to do all those things. I think those services could be better, but the government should be making sure I get them.
I do think it's worth noting that taxation as it exists today was not an inherent part of government. We've chosen to expand government, but always with an accountability to the people. There's a distinction, I think, between "must" and "should".
As Andrew Sullivan noted this week, the private market has been a massive failure when it comes to providing efficient health care service in this country. It's one area where the government does a far better job, and conservatives may rue the day that ACA gets tossed, if it does. What's left to shoot for but Medicare for all? If compromise is no longer an option (as the ACA is and was, having essentially been created by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s), single-payer is what remains. Leaving things alone is untenable, and as my generation gets older and begins to acquire a substance of real power, we won't be so irrationally afraid of imitating Europe and Canada.
Ghost - I think your interpretation of the right to life is a stretch. You appear to be mixing Federal, State, and local governments all up into one and that's an inappropriate comparison. That said, the government provides the functions you describe--police and fire (local and state governments), and military (federal) not just as an extension of the Right to Life but rather as a means to protect (vice provide) the individual's rights, including life, liberty, and property.
You know it's possible that the fear of imitating Europe and Canada is very rational, right?
You know it's possible that the fear of imitating Europe and Canada is very rational, right?
No, it isn't.
To answer an earlier question, it's the mortgage company that requires as a condition of the loan that you have homeowners and perhaps flood insurance.
Car insurance - if you finance a car, you are required to purchase to comprehensive and collision coverage as a condition of the loan. A leasing company will also require automobile liability coverage.
Automobile liability insurance can be required of car owners by the state - many states do so require it. In Washingtn state, we mandate a minimum of 25,000 per person/50,000 per accident/10,000 property damage. Current estimates are roughly 20% drive uninsured - it is estimated to be much higher in some states badly hit by the economy. (Estimates are approximately 1 year old.)
Louisiana does. Actually that's been a point of contention as of recent....FEMA has released new flood maps, and now anyone who lives in those areas is required to buy flood insurance.
EDIT -- Okay so it's the mortgage company, not the government itself.
I live in earthquake country, but earthquake insurance is so expensive, the state can't require it. Flood insurance is required for homes built on land designated by geologists as 'flood plains.'
When Calif. enacted the law requiring car insurance for everyone, insurance rates went up because the insurance companies had to cover any and all drivers that applied. They couldn't refuse coverage to bad drivers.
On another note, I am a bit worried because the company I work for is re-evaluating our health insurance coverage for 2013, so I hope the Supreme Court doesn't strike down the entire law, even if it should strike down the mandate.
I really don't care if it were carried out on local, state, or federal level. As long as some level of government was obligated to do it across the entire United States. And I think the federal government is the only one that can afford it. Though Vermont is going to implement a statewide single-payer healthcare, so maybe we can watch how that goes.
How's my intepretation a stretch? You seem to be saying the same thing in the second part. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.
Flood insurance is required if you have a mortgage and live in a flood zone. If you have no mortgage, you don't have to buy it.
Earthquake - well, California does have the state earthquake agency and insurance companies are required to offer it at least every 2 years. It's optional in Washington, mortgage or no mortgage, but getting more and more expensive and harder to find a seller.
Earthquake/flood/etc. are not usually traditional insurable hazards because the law of large numbers doesn't work well.
If you don't live in flood/earthquake country, why do you wish to buy insurance to keep the prices down for those who do?
To keep rates down for all, you must have a lot of participation in the pool.
So, while I do NOT work in health insurance, the same principle applies - the more folks involved in the pool (especially the healthier folks) the lower the rates for everyone. Eventually, a lot of the healthy folks will become the less healthy, but there will be new "healthy folks" joining the pool.
With health insurance, though, you have a lot of new and expensive techniques and to be totally realistic, a huge cost is defensive medicine costs(in its related forms - ask anyone working in the field for a better explanation).
I'm all for consumer protection, but quite frankly, our litigious society creates a lot of extra costs.
Darn right, we is awesome.
Fear of "teh evil Socializm" is about as rational as thinking Communism will take over the world. If anything, Europe is becoming more like the US.
Yes, it is. Sorry.
But it matters.
Actually, the federal government can't, which is part of the problem.
I'm not sure how else to explain it. You do not understand the distinction between the words "protect" and "provide"?
Leaving aside the merits of the bill, what effect do you guys think a repeal would have on the election?
I think it'd be a double-edged sword for the GOP. It would certainly help the narrative they'll try to push of Obama as a "failed" or ineffectual President, but at the same time they'd lose one of their main hobbyhorses.
I can't see Romney defeating Obama either way, but I actually think it being upheld would help his chances. Dislike of the ACA is by no means confined only to core Republicans, or even to moderate conservatives. It could be a useful wedge issue, and it's more of a tangible putative benefit to a Romney presidency as compared to the potential abstract "Obama is a failure" tactic. We saw how well running on a laundry list of complaints (as opposed to an actual substantive platform) worked out for Kerry.
Lowbacca, can I just interject to ask a question? I don't even see how your definition of rights even squares with what exists.
The obligation of the state to provide legal counsel stems directly and solely from the Sixth Amendment to the Constiituion. It is, in other words, a right that consists of "the government giving you stuff." Doesn't that poke at least a small hole in your theory?
I think his point, which I'd hope you agree to, is that the federal government size, revenue stream, and access to credit make it uniquely and significantly better able to bear the costs than any other conceivable actor in the economy. Further, the federal government certainly could afford it if it wanted to.
Couldn't that be framed as what the government must, at the bare minimum, do if it is going to protect the inherent right to a trial before a jury of one's peers?
In other words, protecting that right entails "the government giving you stuff". That doesn't necessarily mean that the government providing a given service is a "right" unless it can be shown to facilitate an actual inherent right.
Yes, I know his point. Yes, I'd agree to that point. Yes, I'd agree that if the federal government prioritized this above all other things, it could afford it. However, given the list of services that the federal government provides, it cannot afford it.
Yes, but if one ascribes to the theory that healthcare is a right, government would similarly be compelled to provide it for individual's for whom no other avenue was available. In neither case would the right primarily be about the government giving you stuff, but instead about the obligation to help secure the right you cannot maintain yourself.
In other words, what you've formulated is a semantic change that still undermines Lowbacca's assertion that rights never entail the government providing goods or services for its citizens.
Hopefully we'll revisit the idea of a single-payer system if the SCOTUS turns the mandate down.