Weena wrote:
It's a big part of the reasons for limited governments, and the idea behind the Constitution. The mob can't (or isn't supposed to be able to) revoke your rights. The rich have rights to their earnings just as much as anybody else, yet we tax them a whole lot more (and I don't mean the pay 10% and that's more to them than others). Why? Because the majority has put sympathetic people in congress, and through laws, imposed those taxes.
Free speech vs free beer.
Having to pay taxes is not comparable to proscription.
Rights come with responsibilities. Like taxation.
Weena wrote:
If the majority thought the First Amendment was shit, and got sympathetic people in congress, you can bet we'd be screwed speechless.
Isn't the same true of markets, except the playing field is less even? If it's your $1 versus some guy with $1,000, how will the cookie crumble?
Weena wrote:
It ignores the 10th amendment. The interstate commerce part is kind of moot, because it (if I understand correctly) technically makes it all interstate with the marketplace. "We can only regulate interstate commerce, so we're going to make it interstate commerce so we can legitimize ourselves."
Isn't that the status quo? It IS interstate commerce. That's not government edict, it's just reality.
Weena wrote:
It's going to result in even more debt, mostly due to no caps...
As for the lasseiz-faire part:
Prices are cited as being a main factor in why people aren't insuring themselves. Prices are increased due to the subsidization we already do. Plus doctors being stiffed when funds are dry - which means they make up for it by increasing prices. You'll find a similar trend in the price of education, except the stiffing there generally happens in the dorms.
Our medical system is the most privatized - and expensive - in the world. Therefore, what reason is there to believe that making the system more similar to less expensive systems will drive up the cost?
Weena wrote:
Mandate. It's either a tax the federal government isn't allowed to impose or a fee for not doing something - which should be obvious as to why that's a load of garbage. They need to pass an amendment if they want to tax for it.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes.
There is a difference between upholding the rights of a minority, and a highly vocal, ideological minority that filibusters whenever it doesn't get what it wants. Insisting on an unreasonable level of political consensus to make something happen that is obviously in the public interest is exactly why the Senate is a logjam.
Weena wrote:
I'd rather see the basic framework be "everybody pays something in, probably based on income, then everybody is given an equal slice from the that pie to buy whatever insurance they'd like."
This is EXACTLY what WOULD cause queues. How would it be decided which patients are seen by whom? How would insurers make those decisions?
Under this system, insurers would be guaranteed tax money but then refuse to provide any but the most marginal coverage to anyone who isn't perfectly healthy, without any family history of disease, from a ultra low-risk background.
Why would insurers even be necessary under this system? If the federal government is hosting the pot, they are effectively filling the role of an insurer. Why not have them just pay providers directly, rather than add another layer of middlemen?
Weena wrote:
Plus you know, it being done by the states. Or, if it just so ever must be done by the federal government, they go through amendment processes.
Why have the states do it?
Weena wrote:
Which, excluding what I said above, is something Obamacare closely resembles. So as it turns out, believe it or not, I'm not vehemently opposed to it because my gut says I should. But it does have some parts I can't stomach.
Alright, could you elaborate on that?
Weena wrote:
Not to mention charity, community organizations, good-hearted doctors and caring family members...
Unfortunately, such things tend to disappear when government takes over their functions. So, I suppose I would have to then suffer the shame of forcing someone else to pay for my mistake.
Then... charity, community organizations, good-hearted doctors and caring family members come into play.
This is the "2+2=5" logic: the belief that the free market will somehow remove the unpleasant responsibility of "paying" for things we wish didn't exist.
1. What's the difference? Charity, NGOs, "the good hearted", your family...are all
paying for your "mistakes".
2. The free market is built on the premise of enlightened self-interest. Why would any of those exist in a free market?
3. Isn't this the same argument in defense of the impractical Communist system - that human nature will magically change to plug the holes in the ideology - people will suddenly stop being selfish and willingly sacrifice for the good of the community without being forced to?
4. What if you made no mistakes - you got in an accident, or had a congenital disorder, something like that? What sort of society would emerge if anyone who is unfortunate gets thrown to the dogs?
5. Charity/community organizations.
Oliver Twist is in large part about why those can't be trusted - they take advantage of the money and authority given to them to enrich themselves and exploit the weak. What makes you think it would work any differently here and now?
6. Good-hearted doctors. Flaw in this reasoning is that our for-profit medical system has created a serious deficit in GPs and proliferated overpaid specialists who pass the costs onto consumers. Why would anyone be a "good-hearted doctor"? If people don't want to pay higher taxes, what makes you think people will be any more altruistic when the stakes are much higher, because other people aren't compelled to make the same sacrifices and are thus at a competitive advantage against those who do?
7. Caring family members. What if you don't have a family? Is it fair, is it just, to penalize people for having sick family members - to force them to choose between making extreme sacrifices and losing out in the rat race? Doesn't that encourage people to be bad - to abandon their families as they are only a burden?
8. This is medivalism - "your wife puts a compress on your head as you lay in a barn" instead of "get taken to an urban hospital". Thus, by your own admission your proposed system will result in reversion to a lower standard of living and quality of life comparable to a third-world country. Since, clearly, that is undesirable, it follows that a more progressive system would be preferable.
Weena wrote:
Also, can I thank you for asking (mostly) pertinent and really good questions?
np
Weena wrote:
I'm going to refer to my contract.
If it's written that they'll cover something, and they don't, take them to court.
Then find a new provider.
If there is no contractual obligation, I'm going to kick myself in the pants for making a boneheaded move.
What if no one will offer you a contract at all? If the market will do it all, then why was it necessary to pass laws to ensure that medical providers would provide care for people with per-existing conditions?
In an earlier thread we broached the issue of DRM. The stakes are much higher here. What makes you think health contracts will be any more negotiable than they are for any number of things, from power to water to credit to video games to music?
