Federal Judge: ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[raptor]

It might be necessary because the capitalistic system isn't perfect. Free market has no means to combat extreme consolidation of wealth and monopolies without government regulation (and, even at this point the monopolies like AT&T have all but reformed). We're approaching the extent of wealth disparity of Brazil.

[raptor]

Garnishing a percentage of my wage so that everyone gets proper heart attack surgery is a lot better than getting hit with a $100+k bill at once, in the event of some personal health catastrophe, driving my family to bankruptcy.

[raptor]

This is more about health insurance being inadequate than people not having any. People who have health insurance can still have their claims denied and they are left with the bill or dead.

[texastorm]

Additionally, do you think that will ever change? Someone has to pay for that expensive surgery for a heath attack. I mean, saving your life costs money. Someone somewhere is paying for it no matter what. I would easily choose a large medical bill over death. If we force them to give the procedures without recieving any money for it, we will start to see a lot of deaths. Because of this,the gov will pick up the tab and we will instead see a lot of debt. The point si that someone always has to pay.

We all make these arguments as if health care was something we are entitled to. If you cannot afford heart surgery, nor the insurance premiums for coverage of heart surgery... then maybe you should not have heart surgery.

I understand I have the right to life, but where do I have the right to extend it? So in essence by getting life saving heart surgery, I am in effect cheating death. Cheating death should not be free, or a fundamental right. In other words getting "more" life should come at a price, and just because we can do something, doesn't mean everyone should get that.

If it is determined that health care is a fundamental right, lets just get universal health care passed and get on with it. Because no other solution fixes the problem of inequality. Sadly universal health care in practice makes this worse as now the rich can buy "extra" care, or passes to the head of the line. Corruption in my view, would likely be more rampant than it is now.

[sgreger1]

Garnishing a percentage of my wage so that everyone gets proper heart attack surgery is a lot better than getting hit with a $100+k bill at once, in the event of some personal health catastrophe, driving my family to bankruptcy.

I fail to see your logic. Lets say the average person has a heart attack in their mid 40's. Let's say 48. And let's assume the cost will be $100k. Since you have to start paying for insurance once you turn 18, that means there are 40 years you are paying into the system untill you reach heart attack age. That's 480 months.

That $100k for the tripple bypass surgery, if broken down over that 40 year period, would cost @208 a month.


The question is, do we have the government force you to pay that $208 a month every year incase you get a heart attack, or should you rather wait to see if you have one, at which point you can just start paying $208 a month once you get the bill, it's not like you have to pay it all at once.




And in real life numbers, we arne't talking $200 a month. You will be forced to buy a minimum package, and the minimum package will be wht is considered "quality' or "adequate" health insurance, which means roughly around $600 a month for those of you who buy health insurance (not through your employer). So your spending tripple the money just incase you have a heart attack someday, instead of paying for the heart attack IF you have one. It's not like they can deny you treatment just because you don't have the money up front.

[sgreger1]

This is more about health insurance being inadequate than people not having any. People who have health insurance can still have their claims denied and they are left with the bill or dead.

FALSE. I cannot stand this insidious lie spreading another inch. It is now "they can have their claims denied and they are left with the bill or dead. It is simply just "they are left with the bill". NO ONE, no matter how broke you are or whether you are a citizen, is denied medical treatment in America. It has been illegal for a long time to deny anyone treatment. The problem is that people don't want to pay the bill.


If you have an expensive life saving surgery, you should have to pay for it, no?


No one is being left to die though. Insurance companies have to deny selling a product to people when it would not be profitable. Insurance is a profit based concept. The question is whether we pay now or pay later, but everyone has to pay, and if you choose pay now than the amount you have to pay is much higher.

[raptor]

If someone has to choose between death and ruining their and their family's life, I think the system is flawed.

[sgreger1]

If someone has to choose between death and ruining their and their family's life, I think the system is flawed.

No, it is not raptor. People will save your life for a fee. The fee includes the cost of the equipment, and the labor from a doctor who spent decades educateing himself and perfecting his craft. If you are willing to pay, you can live another 10 years. If you can't pay now, we will still let you live another 10 years, but you will have to pay it back in installments.

What is flawed is when a person wants to live forever and not pay for the facilities that made that possible. It is selfish.


Either way, don't think ObamaCare will change this connundrum in the slightest. I expect that if anything it will exacerbate the issue. And here's why:


Insurance companies can no longer deny for pre-existing conditions. In addition to that, people only suffer a 2.5% fee if they choose to not buy health insurance, so many people will wait until they are sick to get insurance. So now someone who has not been to the dr in 30 years comes in and buys insurance, and now the insurance company has to shell out a few hundred thousand for a person who has not paid into it,and will likely just cancel their service after the operation is done.


This is going to lead to insurance companies needing to recoup that loss. But wait, they are not allowed to raise premiums on those with pre-existing conditions according to this new HC bill. But they CAN (and will) raise premiums for everyone else.


So those of you paying $600 a month for insurance, get ready to pay $800 a month so you can pay for the guy who put almost nothing into the system.

Going back to the $100k hearrt operation, you are now paying $800 a month every month just so that if you get a heart atack it will be covered. So instead of paying a $100k bill if/when it happens, you are paying $800 a month forever. That 800 a month for 40 years equals nearly $400,000.


So what is better, pay a HUGE amount of money each month (equivalent to a porsche payment) to not have to pay the $100k whent he time comes. Or save $300k by just paying the bill when/if you actually have a heart attack.


ObamaCare is forcing you to pay the $400k for the heart attack, instead of the $100k the current system requires you to pay.

[sgreger1]

If someone has to choose between death and ruining their and their family's life, I think the system is flawed.

Also, that choice has nothing to do with the system. That is life. Before hospitals and insurance, the only choice was death. Consider ruining your finances an upgrade from what people had to deal with for the last 200,000 years.

Baby steps.

[raptor]

I think I've said this twice in this thread already: the healthcare reform bill is bunk, I agree, doesn't need to be reiterated again and again. In a first world country healthcare should be a right, just like it is in every other civilized country except the US. Our current free market system doesn't guarantee that altruistic opinion and as such I think it's flawed. And it will only work with a much more isolationist approach to world affairs, and our government elite don't want the US to stop being the crooked cop of the world.

[sgreger1]

I think I've said this twice in this thread already: the healthcare reform bill is bunk, I agree, doesn't need to be reiterated again and again. In a first world country healthcare should be a right, just like it is in every other civilized country except the US. Our current free market system doesn't guarantee that altruistic opinion and as such I think it's flawed. And it will only work with a much more isolationist approach to world affairs, and our government elite don't want the US to stop being the crooked cop of the world.

We do no have a free market system in the slightest, so not sure what you mean there.

I agree though, HC should be a right. The problem is that we can't afford it and our politicians are too stupid to make it happen even if we could.

The problem is that socialism is the new communism, and therefore anything that can be called a socialist system would never work in the US. Americans will hate it just for the name. So we are all back at square one.

[raptor]

Well, perhaps not a free market system, but a lot of naysayers believe allowing more of a free market system would somehow better benefit Americans on the whole. I just don't see it in this atmosphere of extreme profit-making and wealth consolidation.

[sgreger1]

Well, perhaps not a free market system, but a lot of naysayers believe allowing more of a free market system would somehow better benefit Americans on the whole. I just don't see it in this atmosphere of extreme profit-making and wealth consolidation.

Well, if you are pricing your product at a rate where 85% of American can afford it, than I would say it is pretty competative, no?

The problem is that there is too much regulation (like can't buy across state lines etc.) that stifles competition. Additionally, we have to account for medicare and other programs for the lower incomes.


I am not saying there won't be problems, but Obama's plan is to cover 97% of Americans before he is done. Right now the semi-free market has covered 85%, and another 10% are elegible for insurance right now but have not signed up. Another pecent is illegal immegrants and then of course a certain % of people who just opt out of purchasing it, as is their right. THEN, there is the largest percentage of uninsured, which consists of people who make more than I do and yet do not buy insurance. Not my fault they don't.


So so far the free market has accounted for almost 100% of the market. I would say that is a good business model. We should allow competition, like sales across state lines, but other than that I don't see a huge issue here.

[devilock76]

Let's just point out what all these numbers means. When you hear uninsured, take this into account:


In a June 30, 2009 article, the New York Times reported that, "An estimated three-quarters of people who are pushed into personal bankruptcy by medical problems actually had insurance when they got sick or were injured."

^^^^-- So even once ObamaCare kicks in and everyone has insurance, it won't really affect medical bankruptcy, as three quarters of people who filed bankruptcy due to medical bills had insurance at the time.


85% of the nation already has health insurance. That leaves 46 million without insurance. Of that 46 million, 10 million of them are non-us citizens (illegals or here on temporary visa). So we are revamping the entire system to help (at the most) 36 million people, whilst the other 300 million are covered. Keep that in mind.


And many people don't want to pay for insurance. Of the 36 million US citizens without health insurance, 18.3 million of them are under 34, and likely didn't buy insurance because they feel "healthy". I know I did when I was younger (though this increases costs for everyone when those people get sick.


So now we are down to 18 million people.

Why do these 18 million not have insurance? What do we know about them?

In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.

So of the 18 million, 14 million of them make between $10,000 - $35,000 more than I do each year, yet I have health insurance. Why are these people opting out?

The point is that 90% of the uninsured are people who make almost double what I make a year. They, for whatever reason, do not have insurance. When ObamaCare kicks in, they will be forced to buy it.


That is going to leave a lot of people pisses.




I just don't see why we need to change the entire system just to fix a problem for 10% of the people, when 98% of that 10% make MORE money than I do, yet remain uninsured.





THEN, to make it worse:

A 2003 Blue Cross/Blue Shield Association study concluded that, "More than 14 million uninsured Americans are already eligible for health insurance through Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)." These people could automatically be signed up for these programs by seeking care at a hospital. In addition, a Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute study shows that 7 out of 10 uninsured children could be covered if their parents chose to sign up for existing government programs.




So of the 14 million, 14 million are eligible for insurance RIGHT NOW through the government if they just took the time to sign up.



So essentially we are dealing with maybe 1-5% of Americans who don't have insurance. Of those 1-5%, a percentage of them are homeless or will choose to not pay for health insurance even post-ObamaCare.


Why change the whole system that includes 300 million people, just to fix a problem for 1-5% of people? Why not make a program for their needs instead? Oh, wait, most of them are already eligible for government insurance because they are poor.




Tl;DR:

So we have the poor who do no sign up for existing programs, and those making more money than me who just decided not to purchase insurance. <<-- Should we chagne the entire system just to force these two groups to join the risk pool for the insurane companies?

You are making a huge assumption that there is overlap in your numbers and figures where you want there to be overlap. Just saying.

Ken

[sgreger1]

You are making a huge assumption that there is overlap in your numbers and figures where you want there to be overlap. Just saying.

Ken

And my numbers obviously should eb taken for what they are, something I spent 5 minutes creating for an internet forum post. But the point remains the same, almost everyone is covered, we have a few straglers, so what do we do with them? First, we have to ask "Why are they stragglers?". Turn out the answer to that question is that most of the stragglers either make enough money to afford coverage but chose not to purchase it, are too poor to afford coverage but have failed to opt-in to existing government programs for which they are eligible, or they are illegal aliens.

The amount of people who legitimately cannot buy insurance then amounts to pretty much just those with pre-existing conditions. Recently many states lauched the first phase of ObamaCare, which allows people with pre-existing conditions to sign up for insurance. But guess what? Almost none of them did, and the program goes largely un-utilized.



My point is that we are throwing away the whole system just to deal with the last few stragglers. I do not believe that is the best plan of action. If we were to scrap the whole system for the purpose of covering everyone, than I don't see why we don't just go balls deep and try out socialized health care.