Insurance mandate opens door for solutions to other problems

[JoeTheJuggler]

<derail>This matter of "choice" always irritates me. Healthcare is healthcare. If you get sick or injured, it should be there to help you. Even in places like the UK, if you're wealthy and you choose to get unneeded treatment or treatment in a more luxurious setting, you're free to do that. (And don't even get me started on the "need" for luxury in healthcare in market-driven medical care here in the U.S.! At the hospital where my girlfriend works, they're doing some major renovations to make patient rooms--and suites!--more luxurious. As if HD TVs in private rooms has anything to do with the delivery of medical care.)

This "choice" idea always strikes me as similar to the anti-vaxxer argument, "I know what's best for my child" It's as if being a mother and having "free choice" over how to care for your child somehow trumps medical opinion. Really, other than for medical reasons (allergies, special risk groups, and such), the vaccine isn't "right" for some normal, healthy people but not others.

If what they're after is making a poor medical decision in deference to a religious belief, they should just say that. It's not a matter of deciding what's best for their child's health; it's about letting their religious beliefs trump medical opinion.
</derail?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Choice is about competition. It's about being able to leave one insurance company that doesn't provide the service that you want and being able to go to a different one that does. One thing that people are worried about is a UHC limiting specific kinds of treatment because some bureaucrat thinks that it is not cost effective for the general public, doctors opinion on specific cases be damned. This is something that can only happen when there is a monopoly on a specific service. So long as different companies are competing for the same customers, the customer wins.

One of the problems with our system today is that there is not enough competition. The House bill aim to fix this problem by eliminating the insurance companies anti-trust exemption and create a government run health insurance company (a non-profit if you will) to compete against private insurance. I am exceedingly skeptical about the end-result of the government run health insurance company, however if I could predict exactly what would happen with its introduction I would win Mr. Randi's Million Dollars

 

[mhaze]

It isn't an improvement because young and healthy people like myself will have a financial incentive to stop paying for expensive group health insurance, pay a less expensive fine and have nothing to worry about if have major health issues arise.

70% of the babies born in Parkland Hospital, Dallas last year were from illegal Mexicans.

I got news for you, the illegals are not going to pay the fine, and they are not going to pay insurance. They're going to keep right on going to EM rooms and getting service for free.

To get tracked down on a fine, you have to be working with a valid SSN. Someone in the cash economy, no can find. (or fine)

 

[Blue Mountain]

70% of the babies born in Parkland Hospital, Dallas last year were from illegal Mexicans.

Source?

I got news for you, the illegals are not going to pay the fine, and they are not going to pay insurance. They're going to keep right on going to EM rooms and getting service for free.

To get tracked down on a fine, you have to be working with a valid SSN. Someone in the cash economy, no can find. (or fine)

And you'll have to keep on paying for their healthcare, whether you want to or not. Welcome to the real world.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

In a side note: Looking at it, it's hella cheaper for me to just pay the fine. Since.. OK:

See, I earn less than 20k a year. I pay (once the insurance kicks in!) 160/mnth or 1920/yr for it.

But, IIRC, the fine is 2.5% of income or..500/yr.

And I get back at least 600 from taxes. .. meaning it'd cost me *nothing* to pay the fine.

So, yeah, I think the fine is too little, but I know, for example, a coworker who can't pay the fine OR the insurance. It's a very thorny problem when they abandoned the single payer system.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In a side note: Looking at it, it's hella cheaper for me to just pay the fine. Since.. OK:

See, I earn less than 20k a year. I pay (once the insurance kicks in!) 160/mnth or 1920/yr for it.

But, IIRC, the fine is 2.5% of income or..500/yr.

And I get back at least 600 from taxes. .. meaning it'd cost me *nothing* to pay the fine.

So, yeah, I think the fine is too little, but I know, for example, a coworker who can't pay the fine OR the insurance. It's a very thorny problem when they abandoned the single payer system.

If you make less than $20K you'll doubtless qualify from some help (subsidies or affordability points or whatever it's called).

Also, when you compare the fine to the premium, remember that the premium gives you health insurance, but the fine does not. If you pay the fine, you'd still have to pay your medical bills.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh, I know. I'm covered under my employer's plan. (Sadly, apparently, I make way too much for any state benefits. Weird.) I'm not sure if it'll qualify for benefits. That said, I don't have any plans of abandoning my insurance plan short of being fired so.

 

[tyr_13]

Oh, I know. I'm covered under my employer's plan. (Sadly, apparently, I make way too much for any state benefits. Weird.) I'm not sure if it'll qualify for benefits. That said, I don't have any plans of abandoning my insurance plan short of being fired so.

I've never made more than $10,000 in a year (in fact I believe the most I've every made in one year was $8,000), and I still don't qualify for state benefits. I've tried twice now, and I'm still kind of confused as to why.

Also, my work plan just changed. Now I pay even more for even less coverage. There are some tests that could bankrupt me even with insurance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, my work plan just changed. Now I pay even more for even less coverage. There are some tests that could bankrupt me even with insurance.

The House bill includes an annual cap on out-of-pocket medical expenses. (Also the stuff about them not being able to drop you if you end up really needing the benefits to pay for major medical bills.) IIRC, it's $5000 for an individual.*

The idea is that someone who pays for insurance shouldn't be financially ruined because of medical bills.

If you earn under $10K a year, you will qualify for the subsidy under the plan. The FPL for an individual is right around $10K, and the subsidy is based on how much over FPL your income is.

From the kff.org summary:

Sharing Subsidies to Individuals
Provide affordability premium credits to eligible individuals and families with incomes up to 400% FPL to purchase insurance through the Health Insurance Exchange. The premium credits will be based on the average cost of the three lowest cost basic health plans in the area and will be set on a sliding scale such that the premium contributions are limited to the following percentages of income for specified income tiers:
133-150% FPL: 1.5 - 3% of income
150-200% FPL: 3 - 5.5% of income

So it sounds like your subsidy would be calculated so that the premium you pay will be at the lower end--maybe 1% of your income.

*But again, for lower income people, there's a sliding scale for that out-of-pocket limit. For you, it would be no more than $500:

Lower the out-of-pocket spending limits established in the essential benefits package ($5,000/individual
and $10,000/family) for eligible individuals and families with incomes up to 400% FPL to the following
amounts:
133-150% FPL: $500/individual; $1,000/family
150-200% FPL: $1,000/individual; $2,000/family

Actually, since you make less than FPL, I would imagine you'd qualify for Medicaid. (There are other tests for eligibility beyond income alone that vary from state to state. According to this site: "assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds."

 

[Tricky]

A few posts moved to AAH for off-topic and bickering. If you wish to discuss something besides the topic of the thread, please start a different thread.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

M'kay, then let's try this again:

Constitution? WHO NEEDS IT!?!?

Instead of playing the stupid "point out to me in the Constitution where it says government can blahblahblah," try pointing out how having UHC is unconstitutional. What clause, amendment, or article in the Constitution is being breached?

Re: Article 1 Section 8 (the listing of the powers of Congress) and the charge to show where Congress has this authority :

And did you read the very first one of those? It includes " to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Also, the last one (which has the famous "necessary and proper" clause).

However, if you're making a charge that the bill is unconstitutional, the burden is on you to prove a conflict. You can't shift the burden to the other side requiring them to prove there is no constitutional conflict.

So apparently some people think the House health insurance reform bill just passed is unconstitutional, but we're still waiting for someone to present an argument to support that allegation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My bolding:

Yes, I just used a ridiculous analogy to point out how ridiculous Congress is by stating it can force someone to buy something with no exceptions.

The House bill includes a few exceptions. According to the KFF summary:

Exceptions granted for those with incomes below the filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 is $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples), religious objections and financial hardship.

 

[Newtons Bit]

M'kay, then let's try this again:





Re: Article 1 Section 8 (the listing of the powers of Congress) and the charge to show where Congress has this authority :


So apparently some people think the House health insurance reform bill just passed is unconstitutional, but we're still waiting for someone to present an argument to support that allegation.

If you're referring to me, keep looking. I was commenting on the federal mandate that an individual buy a product, not the constitutionality of a UHC. I have commented on it on other threads, but my conclusion was "maybe". Back in the 1930's, the Supreme Court decided that the "General Welfare" clause could allow the government to spend it's money on Social Security because the crises of the Great Depression was so great and vast. Whether or not that has evolved since, I don't know. Whether or not the 10th amendment allows states to have the final say on healthcare issues, I don't know. It sure as hell would be challenged, however.

 

[Newtons Bit]

My bolding:


The House bill includes a few exceptions. According to the KFF summary:

Yes, I see that. I was referring to exceptions of "I don't drive a car on public land, therefor I'm exempt from needing car insurance", or, "I don't fly, therefor I don't have to pay travel insurance".

I suppose there's a, "I don't breathe, therefor I don't have to buy health insurance" exception...

 

[mhaze]

Source?

And you'll have to keep on paying for their healthcare, whether you want to or not. Welcome to the real world.

When I mention in passing, some part of the reality of babies in hospitals, to which you profess skepticism or ignorance, the one who must be welcomed to the real world is clearly not I, but you....

 

[mhaze]

....apparently some people think the House health insurance reform bill just passed is unconstitutional, but we're still waiting for someone to present an argument to support that allegation.

Which I've linked to but in another thread. But Google is your friend, constitutional law scholars have written on the matter on both sides. So if you are "still waiting", well, maybe you like to wait?

If you're referring to me, keep looking. I was commenting on the federal mandate that an individual buy a product, not the constitutionality of a UHC. I have commented on it on other threads, but my conclusion was "maybe". Back in the 1930's, the Supreme Court decided that the "General Welfare" clause could allow the government to spend it's money on Social Security because the crises of the Great Depression was so great and vast. Whether or not that has evolved since, I don't know. Whether or not the 10th amendment allows states to have the final say on healthcare issues, I don't know. It sure as hell would be challenged, however.

I did link to one of the debates on constitutionality, but briefly it seems here the question is whether the GW clause allows fining or penalizing someone, as opposed to taxing.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which I've linked to but in another thread. But Google is your friend, constitutional law scholars have written on the matter on both sides. So if you are "still waiting", well, maybe you like to wait?

And another swing and a miss! Yes, I know about google. But we're having a conversation here on this forum. If you wish to argue that this bill is unconstitutional, then you should do so. "Google is your friend" doesn't do it.

I did link to one of the debates on constitutionality, but briefly it seems here the question is whether the GW clause allows fining or penalizing someone, as opposed to taxing.

Not much of a question, though.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Also, the IRS has the authority to charge you penalties (and interest) for not paying your income tax on time. So it would be a strange legal theory that said a body of the federal government can charge taxes but not penalties or fines.

Congress also is responsible for passing a great deal of statutory criminal law, and many of these laws specify fines.

Really, a case based on the idea that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose fines will fail resoundingly.

 

[Newtons Bit]

And another swing and a miss! Yes, I know about google. But we're having a conversation here on this forum. If you wish to argue that this bill is unconstitutional, then you should do so. "Google is your friend" doesn't do it.



Not much of a question, though.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Also, the IRS has the authority to charge you penalties (and interest) for not paying your income tax on time. So it would be a strange legal theory that said a body of the federal government can charge taxes but not penalties or fines.

Congress also is responsible for passing a great deal of statutory criminal law, and many of these laws specify fines.

Really, a case based on the idea that Congress doesn't have the authority to impose fines will fail resoundingly.

Congress only has the authority to impose fines or regulate, etc, when it has a specifically enumerated power on that topic For example, it may impose fines/jail-terms on people for disobeying the civil rights act. Oddly enough, however, the power that grants it the authority to do that is the commerce clause.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Which I've linked to but in another thread. But Google is your friend, constitutional law scholars have written on the matter on both sides. So if you are "still waiting", well, maybe you like to wait?

And another swing and a miss! Yes, I know about google. But we're having a conversation here on this forum. If you wish to argue that this bill is unconstitutional, then you should do so. "Google is your friend" doesn't do it.
...

Joe when someone has politely indicated that an entire area of reality exists which you seem to be in denial of, "Google is your friend" is indeed good advice. You don't direct or umpire the conversation. Being ignorant of it renders you incapable of such.

 

[Blue Mountain]

When I mention in passing, some part of the reality of babies in hospitals, to which you profess skepticism or ignorance, the one who must be welcomed to the real world is clearly not I, but you....

I notice you made no attempt whatsoever to back up your claim that 70% of newborns in a particular hospital were born to "illegal" Mexicans.

So, again, what is your source for the claim that 70% of the babies born in Parkland Hospital, Dallas last year were from illegal Mexicans?