Federal judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional- Yes!

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

[quote]Hey Bud wrote:

2) How health care is administered in the last year of a person's life (difficult and perhaps moral question).

Sounds like you are going down the "Death Panel" path. You want to kill all our grandmothers to save some $, don't you!?!?

Interesting point SL-a. If I remember correctly, the health care bill allowed persons to obtain end of life counseling which I think (this is off of memory) was designed to get people thinking about advanced directives, etc. I don't know whether this was included in the final bill or not.

I read a blurb recently that said health care costs in the last couple of years of a person's life was about half their overall lifetime expenditure. This makes sense on one level but got me thinking that perhaps money was being spent unnessarily (for the patient, the patient's heirs, the patient's insurance plan, and the society as a whole). Hospital stay in an ICU is $1500 to $3000 per day(guessing)? Nobody wants to die but who wants to saddle their heirs (and potentially society) with huge bills?

Where does common sense come into play? This is similar to the perfect outcome scenario that is driving up medical malpractice costs.

wondering wrote:

Hey Bud wrote:

In how many other nations is there employer based health care?

is the Canadian method superior?

I don't know whether it is or not but other methods should be explored. This cost curve has got to change, especially given the demographic problems we're getting ready to have (Baby Boomers retiring which will be a big burden on the health care system and govt. (Medicare)

wondering wrote:

is the Canadian method superior?

It depends upon your yardstick for superior. The Canadian system is clearly less expensive and has somewhat better outcomes, though it's debatable whether the similar outcome is directly attributable to the respective systems.

Didn't Congress pass legislation to allow HMO's under Nixon? If it wasn't illegal before, what did the legislation do -- give them handouts? What's the constitutional basis for that?

An Historian wrote:

The Constitution only regulates the government. Non-state actors can do anything that is not illegal, e.g. set up a health-maintenance organization.

Also, the Canadian system would not be constitutional here. The NHS in the UK would be.

So let me make sure I understand what is going on here. After this latest ruling, the federal courts have now ruled in favor of Obamacare by a 2-1 margin. Correct? What's everyone getting so excited about?

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

I would argue exactly this. Medical care is a good. It is not unique and not exempt from the laws of economics. If people want medical care they should purchase it, either directly or through insurance.

Good for you "Mr Oblivious." You've at least stated your honest opinion here, and are the first on the thread to say:

EMTALA is immoral. Explain why you think health care is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. By further removing the consumer from the costs we are just going to drive costs sky high for everybody.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

By further removing the consumer from the costs we are just going to drive costs sky high for everybody.

Just to go full circle, it was the "individual mandate" portion of the healthcare bill that the Virginia court declared unconstitutional. Whatever your thoughts on that provision "further removing the consumer from the costs" is precisely the opposite of what is attempting to accomplish.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

By further removing the consumer from the costs we are just going to drive costs sky high for everybody.

Just to go full circle, it was the "individual mandate" portion of the healthcare bill that the Virginia court declared unconstitutional. Whatever your thoughts on that provision "further removing the consumer from the costs" is precisely the opposite of what is attempting to accomplish.

The "individual mandate" removes a choice from the consumer. Exactly the same way EMTALA removes a choice from the provider. By removing choice from the provider it removes the consequences of the decision not to purchase health insurance from the consumer and insulates them from the cost of that decision.

Fixing bad government regulation with more government regulation.

check this out yo wrote:

So let me make sure I understand what is going on here. After this latest ruling, the federal courts have now ruled in favor of Obamacare by a 2-1 margin. Correct? What's everyone getting so excited about?

You are correct.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Good for you "Mr Oblivious." You've at least stated your honest opinion here, and are the first on the thread to say:

EMTALA is immoral. Explain why you think health care is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. By further removing the consumer from the costs we are just going to drive costs sky high for everybody.

EMTALA is "immoral".....What sort of world do you live in and under what version of morality would the provision of health care to a person in an emergency situation be considered "immoral"?

I'm assuming that by immoral you mean that an individual consumer has a decision to get health insurance or not get health insurance and that by showing up at the hospital to get emergency treatment they are a free rider in the system and thus have no "morality"? Of course, all this assumes they have the money for health insurance to make that choice one way or another.

I'm sure you're going to trot out your straw man for this argument but I want to hear the explanation.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The "individual mandate" removes a choice from the consumer. Exactly the same way EMTALA removes a choice from the provider. By removing choice from the provider it removes the consequences of the decision not to purchase health insurance from the consumer and insulates them from the cost of that decision.

Fixing bad government regulation with more government regulation.

The free market ideal presumes that all the consequences fall back on the individual, that is, there is no societal interest in an individual's health. It seems like in the case of infectious diseases, say tuberculosis, it might be in the interest of society to pay to have that person treated rather than have them ride the subway to their food service job until they've earned enough to buy a round of antibiotics.

800 dude wrote:

Also, the Canadian system would not be constitutional here. The NHS in the UK would be.

.

I am not sure what makes you conclude that the Canadien system would not be constitutional in the USA but maybe you have heard that the constitution can be revised. I think they call it amending it

Of course it's constitutional, didn't you guys read the part of the United States constitution where it says "the federal government shall buy everyone free health care".

Socialists, go move to Europe. Let America be what the constitution says it should.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

EMTALA is immoral. Explain why you think health care is exempt from the laws of supply and demand. By further removing the consumer from the costs we are just going to drive costs sky high for everybody.

Costs are already sky high. They are higher here than they are in other countries (ones with national health systems).

Health care isn't exempt from the laws of supply and demand, but the law is more complex than you think it is. The demand for health care is fairly inelastic, so changes in cost will not substantially increase demand (I'm not going to go to the dentist every week just because it's free. Hell, you have to force me to go twice a year).

Health costs are also incredibly opaque. I have (well, had) an HSA, which is supposed to make me more of a partner in my health care and make me a more savvy consumer by making me shop around, etc etc. There's a problem with that - I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH THINGS ARE GOING TO COST AND NO WAY TO FIND OUT. Let's say I have a back injury. I'd like to be able to call up various doctors and find out how much it's going to cost. No chance. Can't be done. There is NO WAY for me to get this information ahead of time. Call the doctors and ask, they WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU.

I'm already removed from the costs because I have no way of finding them out ahead of time.

The Real UncleB wrote:

800 dude wrote:

Also, the Canadian system would not be constitutional here. The NHS in the UK would be.

.

I am not sure what makes you conclude that the Canadien system would not be constitutional in the USA but maybe you have heard that the constitution can be revised. I think they call it amending it

God help the academic institution that actually pays this moron. You know, Jeff, you could get help with that dyslexia. I hear there is federal funding for people with learning disabilities. Oh, wait, you'd have to get off your rocking horse long enough to realize that you need help. Let me point it out genius: Canadien. If that wasn't obvious, I'll highlight the error with capitals: canadiEn. Now, since it's clear you lack the ability to deal with simple things, like spelling, let's stop pretending for the school kids you actually know something and get back to the black board, you little asian bitch. Stop sniffing glue, kids, otherwise you'll end up like this guy...seeing everything as a conspiracy and everyone as a hatemonger.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

The free market ideal presumes that all the consequences fall back on the individual, that is, there is no societal interest in an individual's health.

Not true.

Classic examples include quarantines and

re: pollution.

Please learn a bit about what you are attempting to critique before attempting a critique.

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

The demand for health care is fairly inelastic

Actually it is EXTREMELY elastic. Drug companies spend billions of dollars every year on ads like this

and this

and this

precisely BECAUSE of the elasticity of health care demand.

Certainly with a simple arm fracture everyone will seek medical attention and everyone will get similar treatment, but the majority of cases allow for far more options.

check this out yo wrote:

So let me make sure I understand what is going on here. After this latest ruling, the federal courts have now ruled in favor of Obamacare by a 2-1 margin. Correct? What's everyone getting so excited about?

The other two cases were decided on narrower grounds than this one. This ruling is also about momentum. There is also a court hearing in FL tomorrow.