House to vote on health care reform Sunday.

[grumbler]

You know, it occurs to me.  Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on.  This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.

  I don't think I have disagreed with a word he has said on this topic since he joined the trifora.

I judge the post, not the poster.

[citizen k]

The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control.

How can it be pre-paid when they don't come close to covering costs?

[DGuller]

You know, it occurs to me.  Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on.  This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.

Nobody should defer to me on any subject, regardless of my level of expertise in it.  Same goes for everyone else.  You should evaluate my statements based on how well I support them, and not on my level of expertise in the subject.  I would also not call myself a health insurance expert, as I don't work in the health insurance industry.

[DGuller]

The problem of course is that what we call health insurance is in reality pre-paid health care, which is why the costs are so out of control.

How can it be pre-paid when they don't come close to covering costs?

The point Hans was making, and it's a very good one, is that insurance should compensate you against unforeseen events.  The events covered by insurance should be random by definition (and also satisfy a couple of other requirements not relevant here).  By the classical definition of insurance, health insurance isn't really insurance, and that's part of the problem.  Insurance doesn't work well when it covers predictable expenses.

[The Brain]

You know, it occurs to me.  Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on.  This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.

Nobody should defer to me on any subject

10-4

[The Minsky Moment]

[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.

The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow.  There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era.  So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted.  Don't bet the ranch on it.

[Razgovory]

You know, it occurs to me.  Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on.  This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.

  I don't think I have disagreed with a word he has said on this topic since he joined the trifora.

I judge the post, not the poster.

Whatever.

[Razgovory]

You know, it occurs to me.  Everyone jumped down Dguller's ass for going on about stuff he wasn't an expert on.  This is actually his area of expertise so I think we should all just defer to him on this.

Nobody should defer to me on any subject, regardless of my level of expertise in it.  Same goes for everyone else.  You should evaluate my statements based on how well I support them, and not on my level of expertise in the subject.  I would also not call myself a health insurance expert, as I don't work in the health insurance industry.

Whatever

[Faeelin]

[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.

The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow.  There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era.  So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted.  Don't bet the ranch on it.

Did you see Barnett's bit on this? I was a bit surprised he was so certain it's unconstitutional; yea, he's a libertarian, but he's a pretty sharp cookie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031901470.html

[DGuller]

[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.

The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow.  There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era.  So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted.  Don't bet the ranch on it.

I meant to concur only with the actuarial bits.  The situation described by Hans can happen even without the challenge, though, as the mandate is pitifully inadequate. 

With regard to the constitutional challenge, I have heard from health actuaries that they're very doubtful that the mandate would survive it, so that argument is familiar to me as well.  I don't know how well-informed and bias-free their doubt is, though.  There are unfortunately plenty of demented right-wingers in our ranks.

[Syt]

There is also mandatory interchangable drug substitution legislation (pharmacists must dispense the generic version if it is labelled as officially "interchangeable" with a brand, and you are prescribed the brand, and the physician does not say "no substitution" - its a bit more complex than that, but that is basically the story). 

That was tried in Germany, too, together with attempts to force doctors on a prescription budget. The thing is that big pharma often has doctors (or a large percentage of them) in their pockets through various means. Not to mention that it can be popular to take an old medication and add a new component which changes it in an almost insignificant way which leads to a new patent and to a drug for which there's no generic yet. Add a marketing campaign that hypes the new version of the drug.

[Hansmeister]

[It must be that one time in the year where you chose to parrot just the right posting from just the right blogger.

The "constitutional challenge" bit raised half an eyebrow.  There is no question of effect on interstate commerce here, and that is the only ground on which Commerce Clause challenges have carried in present era.  So the opponents are esssentially banking on the prospect that a conservative Court will buy an untested 9th Amendment argument that could have lots of unexpected ramifications if adopted.  Don't bet the ranch on it.

How are you engaging in interstate commerce by not engaging in commerce?  This argument doesn't even pass the laugh test.  Not to mention that the HCR Bill leaves in place the ban on interstate commerce on health insurance.  Where did you get your law degree from, DeVry?

[Faeelin]

How are you engaging in interstate commerce by not engaging in commerce?  This argument doesn't even pass the laugh test.  Not to mention that the HCR Bill leaves in place the ban on interstate commerce on health insurance.  Where did you get your law degree from, DeVry?

You don't see health care as relating to commerce?

[The Minsky Moment]

Hans is unaware of the meaning of the term "regulate," I guess.

[grumbler]

Hans is unaware of the meaning of the term "regulate," I guess.

You are dodging his question. 

Did you, or did you not, get your law degree from DeVry?