http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/12/us-usa-healthcare-idUSTRE77B4J320110812
Quote
Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law
WASHINGTON | Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:24pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
5-4 anyone?
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
Yeah.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
Yes.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
Da.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
basic insurance theory, actually :)
I thought the point of insurance was to pool risk. I can think of all kinds of insurance that is not mandatory.
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2011, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
basic insurance theory, actually :)
I wouldn't say it's basic at all. In basic insurance theory, there would be no such thing as health insurance. Insurance is to protect against unpredictable chance events that are significant in magnitude and occur rarely. With basic insurance, you actually do not need compulsion: if you didn't insurance your house against a fire, too fucking bad when it burns down.
Quote from: Berkut on August 12, 2011, 01:29:35 PM
I thought the point of insurance was to pool risk. I can think of all kinds of insurance that is not mandatory.
different PR. idiot doesn't ensure business and it burns down at most you'll get people going "haha, retard should have been ensured". People start dying becasue they aren't ensured and outcry will mean government foots the bill.
Someone in my office cheered loudly. No one appreciated his reaction.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 12, 2011, 01:26:23 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 12, 2011, 12:48:29 PM
I'm confused. What's the point of health insurance if you can opt out?
Won't that just drive prices up for those insured and create a whole lot of trouble when young people who opted out get diagnosed with something nasty - bankruptcies, ER costs to be assumed by someone, etc?
basic insurance theory, actually :)
I wouldn't say it's basic at all. In basic insurance theory, there would be no such thing as health insurance. Insurance is to protect against unpredictable chance events that are significant in magnitude and occur rarely. With basic insurance, you actually do not need compulsion: if you didn't insurance your house against a fire, too fucking bad when it burns down.
The State of Missouri begs to differ. I have to buy car insurance.
It's that way because car insurance is mainly structured as a liability insurance. If I run into you and cripple you for life, it's not looked upon as a chance event happening to you. It's loooked upon as tort, and thus it makes me liable to pay your damages. Given that, it's in society's interest to make sure that I can actually pay you the judgment against me.
Plus, while I'm sympathetic to the idea that licensure to drive and car ownership is often a requisite to participating in the economy, automobile insurance is still arguably optional, especially depending on where you live.
Whereas my understanding was that if you have a job and aren't exempted in some fashion, you've got to pay for health insurance under that plan. Am I incorrect?
Let me the first to say it:
"Damn those activist judges!". :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 03:39:38 PM
It's that way because car insurance is mainly structured as a liability insurance. If I run into you and cripple you for life, it's not looked upon as a chance event happening to you. It's loooked upon as tort, and thus it makes me liable to pay your damages. Given that, it's in society's interest to make sure that I can actually pay you the judgment against me.
Who's interests are we more concerned about? Mine or Society? Anyway, I'm already legally crippled for life. You run over my legs and cripple me, I'll kick your head in!
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:56:26 PM
Let me the first to say it:
"Damn those activist judges!". :mad:
Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:56:26 PM
Let me the first to say it:
"Damn those activist judges!". :mad:
Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.
Has anyone heard from him in a while? I thought he was going to out to shoot at Pashtuns. I hope he's okay.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:56:26 PM
Let me the first to say it:
"Damn those activist judges!". :mad:
Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.
Has anyone heard from him in a while? I thought he was going to out to shoot at Pashtuns. I hope he's okay.
Hopefully, he jamming the leaflets up their asses.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 12, 2011, 04:52:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 12, 2011, 04:50:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 12, 2011, 03:56:26 PM
Let me the first to say it:
"Damn those activist judges!". :mad:
Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.
Has anyone heard from him in a while? I thought he was going to out to shoot at Pashtuns. I hope he's okay.
Humvees need their 3,000 mile oil changes. He'll be fine.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:41:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
5-4 anyone?
No reasonable doubt in my mind.
How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 10:51:04 PM
How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?
By ruling that existence is not a commercial act.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 11:25:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2011, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:41:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
5-4 anyone?
No reasonable doubt in my mind.
How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?
Because they want to?
That's why, not how.
Do they need a way? Isn't their sayso good enough?
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 12:14:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 11:25:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2011, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:41:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
5-4 anyone?
No reasonable doubt in my mind.
How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?
Because they want to?
That's why, not how.
Do they need a way? Isn't their sayso good enough?
Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 AM
Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.
They can just say that it doesn't, because the founders wrote the constitution with the intention that the rich get richer and the poor get enslaved.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 01:33:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 AM
Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.
They can just say that it doesn't, because the founders wrote the constitution with the intention that the rich get richer and the poor get enslaved.
Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 14, 2011, 01:22:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 12:14:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 11:25:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2011, 11:07:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2011, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 12:41:03 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 12, 2011, 12:31:09 PM
5-4 anyone?
No reasonable doubt in my mind.
How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?
Because they want to?
That's why, not how.
Do they need a way? Isn't their sayso good enough?
Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.
Christ Tim, this is a thread about an appeals court that just tossed it out as unconsititional. If you want a heads up on what rationale could be used to consider it unconstitutional, you could just look at a description of the rationale in the opening post, or if you are really curious read the opinion. (or read the opinions of most of the republican appointed judges that have ruled in similar cases--not all because I know at least one let it stand).
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.
It does help the poor, because without the mandate universal coverage is impossible without single payer system.
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2011, 02:24:35 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.
It does help the poor, because without the mandate universal coverage is impossible without single payer system.
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
I've been over this many times before. If you have a law that mandates insurers to offer coverage to everybody, you have to have also have a law that mandates everyone to buy coverage. Assuming that universal coverage is a good thing for the poor, then having the mandate is what lets insurers offer health insurance. Without the mandate, health insurers will simply not offer any health insurance to individuals.
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
I've been over this many times before. If you have a law that mandates insurers to offer coverage to everybody, you have to have also have a law that mandates everyone to buy coverage. Assuming that universal coverage is a good thing for the poor, then having the mandate is what lets insurers offer health insurance. Without the mandate, health insurers will simply not offer any health insurance to individuals.
Uhm, insurers have offered health insurance to individuals for years with no mandate.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
I've been over this many times before. If you have a law that mandates insurers to offer coverage to everybody, you have to have also have a law that mandates everyone to buy coverage. Assuming that universal coverage is a good thing for the poor, then having the mandate is what lets insurers offer health insurance. Without the mandate, health insurers will simply not offer any health insurance to individuals.
Uhm, insurers have offered health insurance to individuals for years with no mandate.
And it is expensive with prohibitions on pre existing conditions.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Uhm, insurers have offered health insurance to individuals for years with no mandate.
The difference is that they were not obligated to offer it to everyone who applied. The people who were refused health insurance were typically the people who needed it most.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2011, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
I've been over this many times before. If you have a law that mandates insurers to offer coverage to everybody, you have to have also have a law that mandates everyone to buy coverage. Assuming that universal coverage is a good thing for the poor, then having the mandate is what lets insurers offer health insurance. Without the mandate, health insurers will simply not offer any health insurance to individuals.
Uhm, insurers have offered health insurance to individuals for years with no mandate.
And it is expensive with prohibitions on pre existing conditions.
Yeah, and now they can't continue the prohibitions on pre-existing conditions, but that doesn't address the cost issue.
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 08:11:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2011, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
I've been over this many times before. If you have a law that mandates insurers to offer coverage to everybody, you have to have also have a law that mandates everyone to buy coverage. Assuming that universal coverage is a good thing for the poor, then having the mandate is what lets insurers offer health insurance. Without the mandate, health insurers will simply not offer any health insurance to individuals.
Uhm, insurers have offered health insurance to individuals for years with no mandate.
And it is expensive with prohibitions on pre existing conditions.
Yeah, and now they can't continue the prohibitions on pre-existing conditions, but that doesn't address the cost issue.
If I can't be turned down for pre existing conditions, don't you see that many people will just wait until they get sick to get insurance? That will drive the cost through the roof.
Not that anything so extreme will happen, but if everyone with insurance has cancer, then the cost of the insurance is going to be the cost to treat cancer (plus overhead).
On the other hand, if out of 100 people with insurance, only one has cancer and the rest are healthy, the cost of insurance will be 1/100 of the cost to treat cancer (plus overhead).
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.
Because it's an important step towards a single-payer system. But you do have a point: So long as the insurance companies remain private, for-profit entities, your system will always be immoral.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 08:32:58 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.
Because it's an important step towards a single-payer system. But you do have a point: So long as the insurance companies remain private, for-profit entities, your system will always be immoral.
And unable to sustain an individual mandate. Unemployment insurance still (kind of) works because more people remain employed than claim unemployment. More people are going to become sick or be injured than will not, and the cost to the health insurer can frequently be an order of magnitude greater than it is to the insured individual. To make this work in a capitalist society, the buck has to
start somewhere. With an individual mandate, insurance companies will be paying out
far in excess of what they're taking in revenue.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 14, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2011, 08:32:58 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.
Because it's an important step towards a single-payer system. But you do have a point: So long as the insurance companies remain private, for-profit entities, your system will always be immoral.
And unable to sustain an individual mandate. Unemployment insurance still (kind of) works because more people remain employed than claim unemployment. More people are going to become sick or be injured than will not, and the cost to the health insurer can frequently be an order of magnitude greater than it is to the insured individual. To make this work in a capitalist society, the buck has to start somewhere. With an individual mandate, insurance companies will be paying out far in excess of what they're taking in revenue.
The best pay to impose a sensible system would be to bankrupt the health insurers in order to prevent them from bribing Congress.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 14, 2011, 08:45:00 PM
And unable to sustain an individual mandate. Unemployment insurance still (kind of) works because more people remain employed than claim unemployment. More people are going to become sick or be injured than will not, and the cost to the health insurer can frequently be an order of magnitude greater than it is to the insured individual. To make this work in a capitalist society, the buck has to start somewhere. With an individual mandate, insurance companies will be paying out far in excess of what they're taking in revenue.
I don't know if you know what you're trying to say, but I don't. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 01:02:30 AM
I don't know if you know what you're trying to say, but I don't. :huh:
Basically, if personal mandate goes through: health insurance bankruptcies en masse, here we come.
Without some screening of potential customers, the premiums paid by the insured wouldn't come close to offsetting the massive healthcare costs of some plus the merely big healthcare costs of many.
Say 12 people, 1 each month, need operations costing 12,000 dollars: if the premiums are 200 dollars a month, it would take the premiums of that patient plus 59 others to offset the costs of that one operation. But wait, each of those other payers have had office visits in the past month, so halve their stakes- now, 119 other insured individuals offset the cost. Half of them get prescriptions for minor ailments, the list goes on... with an entire country covered under the premiums-based insurance model, I doubt they'd ever hit the break-even point.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 15, 2011, 07:48:33 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 01:02:30 AM
I don't know if you know what you're trying to say, but I don't. :huh:
Basically, if personal mandate goes through: health insurance bankruptcies en masse, here we come.
Without some screening of potential customers, the premiums paid by the insured wouldn't come close to offsetting the massive healthcare costs of some plus the merely big healthcare costs of many.
Say 12 people, 1 each month, need operations costing 12,000 dollars: if the premiums are 200 dollars a month, it would take the premiums of that patient plus 59 others to offset the costs of that one operation. But wait, each of those other payers have had office visits in the past month, so halve their stakes- now, 119 other insured individuals offset the cost. Half of them get prescriptions for minor ailments, the list goes on... with an entire country covered under the premiums-based insurance model, I doubt they'd ever hit the break-even point.
I don't see how that follows. You set the premium to cover the costs. I'm not sure how your example, which also assumes some really intensive usage, shows that it can't be done.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 08:37:03 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 15, 2011, 07:48:33 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 01:02:30 AM
I don't know if you know what you're trying to say, but I don't. :huh:
Basically, if personal mandate goes through: health insurance bankruptcies en masse, here we come.
Without some screening of potential customers, the premiums paid by the insured wouldn't come close to offsetting the massive healthcare costs of some plus the merely big healthcare costs of many.
Say 12 people, 1 each month, need operations costing 12,000 dollars: if the premiums are 200 dollars a month, it would take the premiums of that patient plus 59 others to offset the costs of that one operation. But wait, each of those other payers have had office visits in the past month, so halve their stakes- now, 119 other insured individuals offset the cost. Half of them get prescriptions for minor ailments, the list goes on... with an entire country covered under the premiums-based insurance model, I doubt they'd ever hit the break-even point.
I don't see how that follows. You set the premium to cover the costs. I'm not sure how your example, which also assumes some really intensive usage, shows that it can't be done.
Yeah, but if it is set too high, your premiums will be legislated down.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2011, 08:20:37 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 08:11:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 14, 2011, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 14, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Quote from: dps on August 14, 2011, 03:39:45 PM
I'd really like an explanation of how being legally required to buy something you can't afford "helps" someone.
I've been over this many times before. If you have a law that mandates insurers to offer coverage to everybody, you have to have also have a law that mandates everyone to buy coverage. Assuming that universal coverage is a good thing for the poor, then having the mandate is what lets insurers offer health insurance. Without the mandate, health insurers will simply not offer any health insurance to individuals.
Uhm, insurers have offered health insurance to individuals for years with no mandate.
And it is expensive with prohibitions on pre existing conditions.
Yeah, and now they can't continue the prohibitions on pre-existing conditions, but that doesn't address the cost issue.
If I can't be turned down for pre existing conditions, don't you see that many people will just wait until they get sick to get insurance? That will drive the cost through the roof.
Not that anything so extreme will happen, but if everyone with insurance has cancer, then the cost of the insurance is going to be the cost to treat cancer (plus overhead).
On the other hand, if out of 100 people with insurance, only one has cancer and the rest are healthy, the cost of insurance will be 1/100 of the cost to treat cancer (plus overhead).
Of course costs go through the roof if people wait until the get sick to take out health insurance and their existing illnesses are covered. That's why the health insurance companies have always excluded pre-existing conditions whenever they could. And while that sounds terrible, it actually makes sense. Covering pre-existing conditions doesn't make any sense--it's insuring against an event that's already occured. It's as if someone didn't take our fire insurance until after their house burned down, and then the fire insurance company was expected to pay for the loss of their house and possessions anyway.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 11:37:26 AM
Of course costs go through the roof if people wait until the get sick to take out health insurance and their existing illnesses are covered. That's why the health insurance companies have always excluded pre-existing conditions whenever they could. And while that sounds terrible, it actually makes sense. Covering pre-existing conditions doesn't make any sense--it's insuring against an event that's already occured. It's as if someone didn't take our fire insurance until after their house burned down, and then the fire insurance company was expected to pay for the loss of their house and possessions anyway.
Of course it makes sense from an insurance perspective (ignoring the various ways people can fall through the cracks). The question is, what is the purpose of health insurance? Is the purpose to make it work as an insurance product, or is its purpose to provide people care when they get sick?
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 12:38:46 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 11:37:26 AM
Of course costs go through the roof if people wait until the get sick to take out health insurance and their existing illnesses are covered. That's why the health insurance companies have always excluded pre-existing conditions whenever they could. And while that sounds terrible, it actually makes sense. Covering pre-existing conditions doesn't make any sense--it's insuring against an event that's already occured. It's as if someone didn't take our fire insurance until after their house burned down, and then the fire insurance company was expected to pay for the loss of their house and possessions anyway.
Of course it makes sense from an insurance perspective (ignoring the various ways people can fall through the cracks). The question is, what is the purpose of health insurance? Is the purpose to make it work as an insurance product, or is its purpose to provide people care when they get sick?
Not the latter. That's the purpose of hospitals, and doctors and other health care professionals.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 01:09:05 PMNot the latter. That's the purpose of hospitals, and doctors and other health care professionals.
:lol:
Very droll.
Alright then... how about this: what is the purpose of health insurance? To function as an insurance product or to provide access to hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals for those who need it?
Quote from: Jacob on August 15, 2011, 01:36:58 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 01:09:05 PMNot the latter. That's the purpose of hospitals, and doctors and other health care professionals.
:lol:
Very droll.
Alright then... How about this: what is the purpose of health insurance? To function as an insurance product or to provide access to hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals for those who need it?
From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.
It's funny how neopagans like dps can call themselves christian.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 03:57:53 PM
From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.
How about from the perspective of society?
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 04:04:03 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 03:57:53 PM
From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.
How about from the perspective of society?
Well, most people I know think that health insurance exists for the same purpose all other types of insurance exists--to enable insurance companies to rip off their customers.
Ok, more serious answer--obviously, from society's POV, they exist to help people pay for health care.
I don't really see the point of this line of discussion, though. Obviously, if you're going to have health care insurance provided by businesses, you have to let them make a profit. Otherwise, they go out of business (d'oh). And if you want health insurance provided by the government, you still have to have some brake on costs, or otherwise it becomes prohibitively expensive, even for the government.
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2011, 04:02:03 PM
It's funny how neopagans like dps can call themselves christian.
What are you on about now?
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 04:04:03 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 03:57:53 PM
From the perspective of the insurance company, the former.
How about from the perspective of society?
I think all companies exist for the same reason: to make a profit. One of the reasons I've always found the slogan "run government like a business", so absurd. If government was a business it'd just raise your taxes and cut all spending.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 04:20:02 PM
I don't really see the point of this line of discussion, though.
That seems like the crux of the matter, though, so I'm not sure why you don't see a point in this line of discussion. Insurance is often evaluated from the point of view of societal benefit, so you have to ask yourself what benefit it is to society to have a healthcare system that can leave people in the most dire need of it locked out of it altogether.
If you don't mind a system where certain people are locked out, then a system of private health insurance where health insurers have a right to screen out applicants might work for you. However, if you find such a concept barbaric, as most civilized countries do, then some other system needs to be utilized. Mandating that insurers give every applicant a coverage in exchange for mandating that everyone applies for a coverage is one such system. It's not the best system for the job, but given political realities, that's the best we can get.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2011, 04:20:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 15, 2011, 04:02:03 PM
It's funny how neopagans like dps can call themselves christian.
What are you on about now?
I'd assume he is on some cock.
Quote from: DGuller on August 15, 2011, 04:34:59 PM
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 04:20:02 PM
I don't really see the point of this line of discussion, though.
That seems like the crux of the matter, though, so I'm not sure why you don't see a point in this line of discussion. Insurance is often evaluated from the point of view of societal benefit, so you have to ask yourself what benefit it is to society to have a healthcare system that can leave people in the most dire need of it locked out of it altogether.
If you don't mind a system where certain people are locked out, then a system of private health insurance where health insurers have a right to screen out applicants might work for you. However, if you find such a concept barbaric, as most civilized countries do, then some other system needs to be utilized. Mandating that insurers give every applicant a coverage in exchange for mandating that everyone applies for a coverage is one such system. It's not the best system for the job, but given political realities, that's the best we can get.
Sure, a prohibition against excluding pre-existing conditions help people who have been turn down for health insurance because of their existing illnesses (or who are accepted but whose pre-existing conditions aren't covered), but nobody is addressing my point that a legal requirement that each individual purchase health insurance doesn't do anything to help people who haven't purchased health insurance because they can't afford it. I've been trying to discuss the cost of purchasing health insurance, and everyone wants to respond to my point about cost by talking about pre-existing conditions.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 07:59:33 PM
Sure, a prohibition against excluding pre-existing conditions help people who have been turn down for health insurance because of their existing illnesses (or who are accepted but whose pre-existing conditions aren't covered), but nobody is addressing my point that a legal requirement that each individual purchase health insurance doesn't do anything to help people who haven't purchased health insurance because they can't afford it. I've been trying to discuss the cost of purchasing health insurance, and everyone wants to respond to my point about cost by talking about pre-existing conditions.
There are measures in the bill to help people get affordable health care, and those who really cannot afford health care get medicaid.
Cost is definitely an issue, though part of the theory is that having a larger participation will enable the insurance companies to reduce premiums. That I will believe when I see it.
Still, the Bushcare system seems to be broken worse than Obamacare seems to be broken. Bushcare really only works for the wealthy and some union members.
Quote from: dps on August 15, 2011, 07:59:33 PM
I've been trying to discuss the cost of purchasing health insurance, and everyone wants to respond to my point about cost by talking about pre-existing conditions.
That's because the points are intricately connected. Mandated coverage without individual mandate would result in policies having sky-high premiums. Individual mandate, if set at an effective level, will prevent that. The point is that individual mandate is actually making insurance more affordable than it would be without it, assuming that insurers won't be allowed to turn people away. (More likely, lack of effective individual mandate would mean no policies being offered at all rather than them having sky high premiums, but the effect is the same,)