patrick.net

Let's face it, the way to get the cost of health care down is to maximize the freedom of private entities to bribe the givernment to let them have a big piece of the pie, even though they don't provide the actual health care. This is freedom. This is the American way that makes me so proud.

About fascism, it's surprising to me that my intuition tells me something so different than what others get from their intuition. Intuition being sort of the sum total of how life experience, logic and emotions inform us.

When I ask myself, who is more likely to cause the government to become fascist, ultimately depriving us of our liberty and quality of life ?

Will it be the big money corporate interests, the super wealthy, and the military industrial complex ?

Or will it the naive lefties who think (big) government can be more focused on services for the ordinary people (but no, not so much that they have no motivation to work).

MY intuition tells me to fear the former destroying this country. Surprisingly, I even see the former being the ones who might destroy the economy. How is it that others can see things so differently ? Mind control ?

The "must buy insurance provision" is not constitutional because it simply forces us all to buy a product from a private entity, which has absolutely 0 guarantees of lowered costs/prices. If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we'll be all forced to pay these too.

Without public option this one provision of the law isn't constitutional at all.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

The “must buy insurance provision” is not constitutional because it simply forces us all to buy a product from a private entity, which has absolutely 0 guarantees of lowered costs/prices. If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

Excellent point. What guarantee is there that this won't happen? The relationship between the insurance companies and our politicians is very cozy. In fact, the insurance industry has one of the largest and most powerful lobbies in Washington.

elliemae says

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

I don't believe he does. Probably has a solid gold toilet from his Holy Shit.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

This assertion is wrong for a number of reasons.

For one, insurers will have to pay out 80-85% of premiums as claims. So *they* can't jack up rates (but providers can).

Also nobody HAS to buy insurance. They can pay the "I'm Stupid" tax instead, which isn't that much a burden compared to current rates, let alone your +300% tomorrow scenario.

There is also the fact that actual cash outgo will be capped at 10.2% of household income due to subsidies. This will cushion all rising health costs for the bottom 80% of America, at the expense of the top 20% who pay most of the federal income taxes.

Of course, this whole thing is going to be moot as the top 20% of the country are now in a cold war with the rest, and this is going to end very badly.

Troy says

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If insurance companies jack up rates by 300% tomorrow, they can and we’ll be all forced to pay these too.

This assertion is wrong for a number of reasons.
For one, insurers will have to pay out 80-85% of premiums as claims. So *they* can’t jack up rates (but providers can).
Also nobody HAS to buy insurance. They can pay the “I’m Stupid” tax instead, which isn’t that much a burden compared to current rates, let alone your +300% tomorrow scenario.
There is also the fact that actual cash outgo will be capped at 10.2% of household income due to subsidies. This will cushion all rising health costs for the bottom 80% of America, at the expense of the top 20% who pay most of the federal income taxes.
Of course, this whole thing is going to be moot as the top 20% of the country are now in a cold war with the rest, and this is going to end very badly.

Troy, but the way they calculate subsidies will hit big cities unfairly. If you live in LA or NY or any other major city where cost of living is high you will get no subsidy at all, you'll be in that "sweet" spot where you get no benefits but pay for others to have them without actually being able to afford it yourself (because of the high cost of living which isn't factored into the formula).

Also insurance can still increase premiums, if they have to pay 80 to 85% in claims does not mean they can't increase prices or make a deal with the provider network to do so. They are in business to make money after all.

Now if reform put caps on provider network price increases as well, we would have something that would truly control the costs.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

If you live in LA or NY or any other major city where cost of living is high you will get no subsidy at all

The subsidies end at $90K/yr household income. These people -- you and me I assume -- should have insurance anyway, and I am perfectly happy with paying more insurance for more universal access to the system, because I consider health care a universal right.

If it doesn't work down the road then we will have to fix it. We can do that, theoretically.

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Just curious. Is that a "right" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

RayAmerica says

Just curious. Is that a “right” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Is owning a home a "universal right?" What about owning a car? Where exactly do you draw the line in your Utopia?

RayAmerica says

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Is owning a home a “universal right?” What about owning a car? Where exactly do you draw the line in your Utopia?

Ray I think over time everything will be a right. Soon healthcare, over time it will be other things too. The more succesful a nation becomes the more entitlements it will have.

Eventually human race will have robots that will be able to do all the work and even reason enough to improve their work. At that point everything will be a right. (It is a long ways away, but it's the goal of humanity)

I think it's my right to have my own reality show. But for now attention-whoring on Facebook will have to suffice.

shrekgrinch says

nor can they alter or suppress them — which is what ObamaCare does.

Possibly. But all this "is it constitutional" jazz is just a smokescreen. This is the same mandate & stuff that the Republicans proposed in 1993 so it can not honestly be described as a radical change. If the SCOTUS, er, Justice Kennedy decides Congress doesn't have the constitutional powers to regulate the largest sector of the economy, nor use its 16th Amendment powers in support of this, then we should simply amend the Constitution to allow the Congress to do these sorts of things.

I really can't see how any rational person would be against that. Who wants 50 different healthcare systems in this country? That's not what we formed the Union for -- we wanted friction-free ability of interstate commerce in all its forms.

Up in Alaska they tried to have their oil dividend checks pay out based on years of Alaskan residence. That was ruled to violate these interstate commerce principles.

RayAmerica says

Troy says

because I consider health care a universal right.

Is owning a home a “universal right?” What about owning a car? Where exactly do you draw the line in your Utopia?

A fair question. I simply think access to that which is necessary to become and remain a productive member of society should be this Utopia.

While "owning" a home is not a right, a right to the land and its resources certainly is.

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

A "car" is not a right, but certainly we are not free if we cannot afford to get around our communities.

As a true capitalist I see that much of what we take as the free market today is not capitalism but rent-capturing.

Capitalism involves the CREATION of new wealth. We really don't do that very well here any more. We've got too many rich people trying to get by without creating anything, just living on rents and other predatory shit.

Idaho Governor enacts an Executive Order banning Obamacare in his state. This is wonderful news for those that believe Obamacare is unconstitutional.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/27614296/detail.html

Shrek .... 100% correct.

It might not be constitutional based on the principles it was founded on. But they are the government now, they can do whatever the hell they wish.

I think it is very unconstitutional to force someone to buy a product from a private enterprise. That's a very slippery slope when it starts.

"Idaho Governor enacts an Executive Order banning Obamacare in his state. "

Why does the Idaho governor hate the US Constitution so much? Did he forget to read the Supremacy Clause? States do NOT have the right to veto federal laws.

@Troy

>"Capitalism involves the CREATION of new wealth. We really don’t do that very well here any more. We’ve got too many rich people trying to get by without creating anything, just living on rents..."

Exactly. Everyone should read this.

Troy says

I am perfectly happy with paying more insurance for more universal access to the system, because I consider health care a universal right.

I agree. One would think that it being a universal right would be self evident.

Interesting that often "pro life" people, even the radical ones are usually against universal healthcare (because that's their overlords position). That's interesting, because on the one hand, they would like to insist that a baby be born, even if to a mother who can not and probably will not soon be able to take care of herself, let alone the child, all in the name of the fetus', or zygote's "rights" and yet they will deny that child health care.

And it's not like many countries haven't already proven that a "medicare for all" system can work well.

Obama grants ObamaCare exemptions to another 204 companies, adding to the already 773 exempted companies. I guess it pays to have friends in high places:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/161203-hhs-approves-200-more-new-healthcare-reform-waivers-

"The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves."

The waivers expire in 2014 when the state exchanges come up and people can leave their shitty employer lock-in plans and buy better insurance on the open market with their subsidies.

The amount of demagoguing the Republicans are doing on what is entirely a Republican idea is really quite shameful.