Health Care Law Ruled (Your predictions)

[KrazyK923]

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how paying taxes and buying a product from a private company are similar? The problem here isn't buying health insurance. The problem is forcing Americans to purchase something. It's the precedent. What limits would the government have? They can claim that purchasing a GM car is a vital national interest and require all of us to purchase GM vehicles or pay a fine. If you think politicians are corrupt scumbags, wait until they have this kind of power.

Commerce Clause

Also, calm down on the hyperbole.

[KDSwain]

To function almost anywhere in America you need a vehicle.

But you aren't required to purchase a vehicle and auto insurance in order to be a legal citizen.

I live in downtown Chicago and haven't owned a vehicle for over 2 years and know many people who also don't own vehicles. Under this law there is no way you can get out of buying a product from a private company.

[Sealed Shut]

To function almost anywhere in America you need a vehicle.



There is a very, very simple answer. The problem is that you're asking the question rhetorically and aren't interested in an answer. It's unlikely you'll read the answer, and even less likely you'll respond if you do.

That said, I'll answer anyway: America has several of the world's best hospitals. Those hospitals are the exception, not the rule. You don't judge the quality of the nation as an aggregate based upon the very best, you use the average level of care. The average level of care in America is some of the worst in the first world.



Do you have a source for this assertion? Demonstrate that most of the world's medical research comes not only from the United States, but also that it comes from privately funded research and not public grants.

Somehow I doubt I'll see a source for this claim anytime soon. It's easy to assert something, it's harder to back it with facts.

It's fun when someone demands sources to claims, and yet provides none of their own.

Since i can't post links yet, i'll copy and paste some stuff for you. let's see if you read.
"Most medical innovations come from the United States. To research that, I looked at the countries of Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine award recipients. These are the listed countries of institutions the individuals work at, not the country of origin of the individuals. For the years 1984 - 2008, the countries are listed below. (Fractional shares of the prize are typically awarded, thus the decimals.)

United States = 17.16666
United Kingdom = 2.5
Germany = 1.8333333
Switzerland = 1.16666666
Austria = 1.0
France = 0.5
Italy = 0.5

UPDATE: The 2009 prize for medicine was split into thirds, all of which went to individuals in the United States."

From Forbes:
"Where does innovation in medical care come from? As Gottlieb notes, “Over the last several decades, most of the notable innovations in health care services have been developed in for-profit companies, often run by entrepreneurs and backed by venture capital.” These include firms such as Surgical Care Affiliates, US Healthcare, Pediatrix, US Oncology, Integrated Healthcare, US Renal Care, Select Medical, Caremark and more.

“Many of these companies,” he writes, “proved that they could simultaneously improve the delivery of medical care while lowering health care costs. Many of these innovations were first aimed at hospitals and sought to move patients treated in costly, inpatient facilities to less expensive outpatient settings. In many cases, the innovations they introduced were eventually adopted by hospitals, which started operating their own rehab facilities, long-term care hospitals, and home dialysis services. The problem is that under today’s market rules, hospitals do not have the incentive to innovate and invest in improved delivery models. They lack the managerial experience and financial incentive to drive change in the delivery of health care services.”

So now YOU support your claims

---------- Post added 2012-06-28 at 09:10 AM ----------

To function almost anywhere in America you need a vehicle.

This is your opinion, not fact. Don't make stuff up.

[Reeve]

I think the Individual Mandate will be struck down and the rest upheld. More's the pity. I just wish we had a better system lined up to take its place before the Republicans put so much effort into overturning this.

[KDSwain]

Also, calm down on the hyperbole.

It's not hyperbole. That is the road we would be heading down.

[dantian]

Under this law there is no way you can get out of buying a product from a private company.

You could be unemployed. To be frank going without a vehicle and being unemployed are synonymous in most of America. America's public transportation is lousy.

I suspect you'd have an even larger problem with fully socialized medicine. The individual mandate is an attempt to meet conservatives halfway on the issue, since it was their idea in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...ocS_story.html

[KDSwain]

I think the Individual Mandate will be struck down and the rest upheld. More's the pity. I just wish we had a better system lined up to take its place before the Republicans put so much effort into overturning this.

How about simply letting people buy health insurance across state lines? More competition always lowers prices. That would be a great first step.

---------- Post added 2012-06-28 at 08:22 AM ----------

You could be unemployed. To be frank going without a vehicle and being unemployed are synonymous in most of America. America's public transportation is lousy.

I suspect you'd have an even larger problem with fully socialized medicine. The individual mandate is an attempt to meet conservatives halfway on the issue, since it was their idea in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...ocS_story.html

Note that the story says it is a REPUBLICAN idea. Having an (R) at the end of your name doesn't make you a conservative. John Chafee never was, never is and never will be a conservative.

[Sealed Shut]

That said, I'll answer anyway: America has several of the world's best hospitals. Those hospitals are the exception, not the rule. You don't judge the quality of the nation as an aggregate based upon the very best, you use the average level of care. The average level of care in America is some of the worst in the first world.

Still awaiting your source for these claims.

[KrazyK923]

It's not hyperbole. That is the road we would be heading down.

Slippery Slope

[Reeve]

How about simply letting people buy health insurance across state lines? More competition always lowers prices. That would be a great first step.

No argument there. What else you got?

Note that the story says it is a REPUBLICAN idea. Having an (R) at the end of your name doesn't make you a conservative. John Chafee never was, never is and never will be a conservative.

OK, it was an attempt to meet republicans halfway. If the democrats wanted to just push through what they really wanted, we'd probably be looking at single payer now, not individual mandate, which was seen to be the compromise position.

[dantian]

Since i can't post links yet, i'll copy and paste some stuff for you. let's see if you read.
"Most medical innovations come from the United States. To research that, I looked at the countries of Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine award recipients.

A small excerpt from a source you don't credit, so I can't check it. It's also a very, very narrow way to judge a nation's total contributions.

That said, I'll assume the information is accurate and ask where these researchers worked? Assuming they're all American, which I don't doubt, were they all employed privately or were they researching using public grants? This information is important, and is not provided.

From Forbes:

Unfortunately Forbes is a business magazine. It does not specialize in science or medicine. You might as well be citing Reader's Digest or Time.

So now YOU support your claims

I'd be happy to if you'd point out which you want a source for.

This is your opinion, not fact. Don't make stuff up.

If you live in New York or another major city my assertion is completely false. If not you will need a vehicle to get to work, thus making car insurance a requirement for at least one person in the household.

Though I'm honestly not interested in debating the point. If you don't have a car that's fine, more power to you.

[Olo]

Roberts crossed party lines

Obamacare upheld

[anyaka21]

To function almost anywhere in America you need a vehicle.

This a patently absurd notion. You can function almost anywhere in America WITHOUT a vehicle.
Public transportation, bicycles, can get most people to and from work in any city in America. Sure it may not be the best or most convenient, but the option is there.

Add that the need for insurance on a car is more about protecting the other guy and not yourself. At least that's what the minimum requirement means.

[Deleted]

Maybe Im just stupid, but I never understood how someone could make healthcare a bussiness like any other.... It is disgusting, private health insurance companies not devoting their effort on health of their clients but they try to maximise their profits---> declining operations for patient----> patient may die or suffer.

I think there should be only one goverment owned "insurance" company, where everyone pays the same sum and this company would cover costs of whole healthcare in the state (wages for doctors/ bills for hospitals, etc.) The profit would be used only in healthcare system to buy new stuff/ repair hospitals etc and not into pockets of few "chosen" so they can buy their new yacht, car, plane, 23rd house and whatnot....

[Reeve]

This a patently absurd notion. You can function almost anywhere in America WITHOUT a vehicle.
Public transportation, bicycles, can get most people to and from work in any city in America. Sure it may not be the best or most convenient, but the option is there.

Add that the need for insurance on a car is more about protecting the other guy and not yourself. At least that's what the minimum requirement means.

A lot of employers won't hire people who don't have their own vehicles.

Also, you still don't have to get health insurance if you don't want to. It may not be convenient for you not to, but you have that option.

[cymraeg13]

I wish people would understand the Constitutionality of things before they go around frothing and going, "HERR ITS UNCONSITUTUTUTIONAL!"

We do, and it is. The court is insane. Now a government can force me to buy a product. We are closer to blood in the streets then ever before.

---------- Post added 2012-06-28 at 02:28 PM ----------

Maybe Im just stupid, but I never understood how someone could make healthcare a bussiness like any other.... It is disgusting, private health insurance companies not devoting their effort on health of their clients but they try to maximise their profits---> declining operations for patient----> patient may die or suffer.

I think there should be only one goverment owned "insurance" company, where everyone pays the same sum and this company would cover costs of whole healthcare in the state (wages for doctors/ bills for hospitals, etc.) The profit would be used only in healthcare system to buy new stuff/ repair hospitals etc and not into pockets of few "chosen" so they can buy their new yacht, car, plane, 23rd house and whatnot....

Your avatar says it all.

[Deleted]

Your avatar says it all.

Not that I wish something bad to another person, but when the insurance company denies to pay for important operation to you or your relative and then he/she dies because it was not "profitable" for insurance company to pay for that, you may change your opinion.

[dantian]

Still awaiting your source for these claims.

Happily.

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

[KrazyK923]

We do, and it is. The court is insane. Now a government can force me to buy a product. We are closer to blood in the streets then ever before.

Wow, really?

Really?

I hope you realize you're playing right into the hands of the puppetmasters who don't like this bill by your reaction.

[kivipää]

I can sort of understand your annoyance at your new laws though. The insurance companies will still, after all, be in charge. When compared to us 1st world countries, we pay in taxes instead in bills to the companies, and if push comes to shove, nobody is demanding us to be treated at a specific place or at a specific cost, and we won't have to fear being drowned in debts because our insurance company tried hard to find a loophole in order to not pay our bill.
The insurance companies themselves are the problem, but they aren't the entities making the research either. What do the drug companies and the like care if their profit comes from a no-profit organisation or another corporation?

Well, if you still think there has to be a place with a system that is a cesspool of misery to the people it is supposed to serve in order to keep science going, I'll be happy it'll be over there while I'm not.
As would the mother whose baby died to an easily treated infection after being denied immidiate treatment because her insurance company wanted them to be moved to another hospital first be, had she lived in any other 1st world country. Or most of the 2nd world/some of the 3rd world countries for that matter.