All you people who are against the government helping out low income people with health insurance are basically against me living another 2 years. Period. Thanks, friends.
We already have Medicaid and Medicare. And hospital emergency rooms are required by law to stabilize an individual regardless of ability to pay. There also are some public hospitals.
I'd like to have some quality of life, not just get stabilized when I'm almost dead, thank you. But apparently that's a luxury the poor don't deserve.
We already have Medicaid and Medicare. And hospital emergency rooms are required by law to stabilize an individual regardless of ability to pay. There also are some public hospitals.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Mar 28, 2012 - 6:13pm
oldslabsides wrote:
I know I'm simple-minded, but I just don't see a middle ground on this. Either individuals are responsible for their health or the government is. Anything in between is likely to result in utter chaos. That said, everyone here knows how loath I am to giving the government control of anything.
We already have Medicaid and Medicare. And hospital emergency rooms are required by law to stabilize an individual regardless of ability to pay. There also are some public hospitals.
I know I'm simple-minded, but I just don't see a middle ground on this. Either individuals are responsible for their health or the government is. Anything in between is likely to result in utter chaos. That said, everyone here knows how loath I am to giving the government control of anything.
What is a 'private' market? It's called the free market, and it wasn't free because of govt intrusion into it to begin with. Now to fix what govt messed, govt proposes MORE intrusion now that they struck a deal with the biggest insurance providers to solidify their monopoly.
Aint Corporatism Grand?
Central Govt is nothing more than an auction, applying 'neighborhood watch style enforcement' for the highest bidders. In this case, the corporate health insurance companies.
Hope that clears things up.
people should be able to form groups or co-ops and negotiate peacefully for all services, health care included
more force = bad results
i'm thinking someone will eventually ask why healthcare is so expensive
between lobbying and inflation life ain't gonna be easy
The economics isn’t very complicated. The health-care industry, which makes up about a sixth of the economy, is rife with inefficiency, waste, and coverage gaps. In seeking to remedy some of these problems, the Obama Administration made a deal with the private-insurance industry—the same deal Mitt Romney made when he was governor of Massachusetts. On the one hand, the federal government barred the insurers from discriminating against the sick and the elderly, thereby raising the industry’s costs. On the other hand, the feds obliged uninsured individuals to purchase coverage, thereby expanding the insurers’ revenues. We can argue whether this was the best way to proceed. (At the time the bill was passed, I raised some doubts about how much it would cost.) But it was a straightforward instance of the central government seeking to redress the failures of the private market—something akin to imposing fuel standards on auto manufacturers, providing state pensions, and forcing banks to hold adequate capital reserves.
In a modern, interconnected economy, activist government policies to remedy market failures are essential. Rather than confronting this argument head-on, which would involve publicly defending the actions of the banks, the insurers, and the industrial polluters, the right has settled on a strategy of trying to undermine the government through the courts, where its pro-corporate agenda can be repackaged as a defense of ancient freedoms...
But, of course, this case isn’t ultimately about the law—it is about politics. The four ultra-conservative justices on the court—Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas—are in the vanguard of a movement to roll back the federal government and undermine its authority to tackle market failures. The movement began in the nineteen-eighties, when the Federalist Society got its start and Ronald Reagan appointed one of its members, Scalia, to the court—and for thirty years it has been gathering strength.
Thus the creation of a new legal theory to sink Obamacare: the idea that while the federal government might well have the authority to regulate economic activity, it doesn’t have the right to regulate inactivity—such as sitting around and refusing to buy health insurance. Now, it is as plain as the spectacles on Antonin Scalia’s nose that opting out of the health-care market is about as realistic as opting out of dying. But necessity is the mother of invention. And, judging by his questions this morning, it is this invention that Kennedy has fastened on.
As I said at the beginning, it’s a bad joke—upon us all.
What is a 'private' market? It's called the free market, and it wasn't free because of govt intrusion into it to begin with. Now to fix what govt messed, govt proposes MORE intrusion now that they struck a deal with the biggest insurance providers to solidify their monopoly.
Aint Corporatism Grand?
Central Govt is nothing more than an auction, applying 'neighborhood watch style enforcement' for the highest bidders. In this case, the corporate health insurance companies.
The economics isn’t very complicated. The health-care industry, which makes up about a sixth of the economy, is rife with inefficiency, waste, and coverage gaps. In seeking to remedy some of these problems, the Obama Administration made a deal with the private-insurance industry—the same deal Mitt Romney made when he was governor of Massachusetts. On the one hand, the federal government barred the insurers from discriminating against the sick and the elderly, thereby raising the industry’s costs. On the other hand, the feds obliged uninsured individuals to purchase coverage, thereby expanding the insurers’ revenues. We can argue whether this was the best way to proceed. (At the time the bill was passed, I raised some doubts about how much it would cost.) But it was a straightforward instance of the central government seeking to redress the failures of the private market—something akin to imposing fuel standards on auto manufacturers, providing state pensions, and forcing banks to hold adequate capital reserves.
In a modern, interconnected economy, activist government policies to remedy market failures are essential. Rather than confronting this argument head-on, which would involve publicly defending the actions of the banks, the insurers, and the industrial polluters, the right has settled on a strategy of trying to undermine the government through the courts, where its pro-corporate agenda can be repackaged as a defense of ancient freedoms...
But, of course, this case isn’t ultimately about the law—it is about politics. The four ultra-conservative justices on the court—Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas—are in the vanguard of a movement to roll back the federal government and undermine its authority to tackle market failures. The movement began in the nineteen-eighties, when the Federalist Society got its start and Ronald Reagan appointed one of its members, Scalia, to the court—and for thirty years it has been gathering strength.
Thus the creation of a new legal theory to sink Obamacare: the idea that while the federal government might well have the authority to regulate economic activity, it doesn’t have the right to regulate inactivity—such as sitting around and refusing to buy health insurance. Now, it is as plain as the spectacles on Antonin Scalia’s nose that opting out of the health-care market is about as realistic as opting out of dying. But necessity is the mother of invention. And, judging by his questions this morning, it is this invention that Kennedy has fastened on.
As I said at the beginning, it’s a bad joke—upon us all.
Yeah, we'll show them. We'll give them 40 million new customers and no competition. Then for the ones that can't afford it, we'll just pay for it. That'll show them.
Seriously, with the money that the health care industry gives to both sides of the aisle, I can't believe they are letting the Republicans make such a show out of this.
As long as the insurance companies get their money why would they care if it's used as a wedge issue. A divided, and therefore impotent public, works well for them too.
