Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to ObamaCare

LadyJazzer wrote: Medicare-for-everyone is what they should have done a LONG time ago.

I trust the government less than I trust the free market.

Your ideas of what should be done are frightening.

The Viking wrote:

SS109 wrote: I think the Supremes will rule that the Feds can require you to buy health insurance.

Even though millions are worse off and losing insurance and costs are so much higher? That is Liberal logic for you. There isn't any! I sure hope they don't!

Mike Rosen was talking about the insurance requirement and says if it is ruled illegal, it might just kill the private insurance companies. Right now they have so many more mandates like unlimited coverage and covering 26 year old kids. If the young are required to have insurance, diluting the risk pool, costs per person will go down.

If the young don't have to have insurance and can buy coverage that includes pre-existing conditions, they will wait until they are sick before buying it.
I know I wouldn't carry health insurance if I could buy it whenever I got sick.

So the Left & the Right could be on the wrong sides on mandatory insurance.

Originally proposed by Nixon and killed by Ted Kennedy. Funny how we switch sides on these things.

That would presume that SCOTUS rules the mandate can be severed from the rest of this governmental monstrosity. If the entire thing is tossed into the circular filing cabinet where it rightfully belongs, the insurance companies won't have to worry about the general government intrusion into their businesses.

Preexisting conditions shouldn't be covered. That's like trying to get an insurance company to cover the damage done to your car before you bought their insurance. Granted, an insurance company ought not to be able to cancel your coverage if/when you get sick - and I might even support some sort of cap on the yearly increase in premiums that they could charge for an illness along the lines of diabetes, Parkinson's or various cancers, but to force a company into allowing someone with these types of conditions to purchase a policy for the same rate that someone without them pays? Not a chance.

Every insurance problem can be laid right at the feet of the general government. Group policies for companies are generally more expensive than a comparable single policy because the government passed a law that said when a company changes insurance companies the new company is not allowed to exclude or deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. The reason most are insured through a group policy is because the federal government froze wages and encouraged the companies to offer health insurance as a way of getting around their interference in the wage negotiations between employer and employee.

No, the best thing that can be done at this point is to get the general government out of the health care/health insurance market to the greatest possible extent, not let more of the camel into the tent and let them have more say so that they can make the existing bad situation even worse than it was before.

With regards to Nixon, would you like to try and convince us that Nixon wasn't interested in the accumulation and the exercise of power by the federal government? He may have aligned himself with the Republican Party, but there is little difference between Nixon and FDR with regards to ignoring what the law is in favor of creating a new law for a new day because they think the law should be different from what it actually is.

PrintSmith wrote: That would presume that SCOTUS rules the mandate can be severed from the rest of this governmental monstrosity. If the entire thing is tossed into the circular filing cabinet where it rightfully belongs, the insurance companies won't have to worry about the general government intrusion into their businesses.

Preexisting conditions shouldn't be covered. That's like trying to get an insurance company to cover the damage done to your car before you bought their insurance. Granted, an insurance company ought not to be able to cancel your coverage if/when you get sick - and I might even support some sort of cap on the yearly increase in premiums that they could charge for an illness along the lines of diabetes, Parkinson's or various cancers, but to force a company into allowing someone with these types of conditions to purchase a policy for the same rate that someone without them pays? Not a chance.

You're absolutely right about the same rate, but that is not what the law says. It simply forces the insurance comanies to cover these conditions. There is nothing that states that these people will pay the same rate as people without the conditions.

Every insurance problem can be laid right at the feet of the general government. Group policies for companies are generally more expensive than a comparable single policy because the government passed a law that said when a company changes insurance companies the new company is not allowed to exclude or deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. The reason most are insured through a group policy is because the federal government froze wages and encouraged the companies to offer health insurance as a way of getting around their interference in the wage negotiations between employer and employee.

Can you support this? This is exactly the opposite of what I've found when pricing policies. Also, how did the federal government "freeze" wages? Are you talking strictly about government jobs?

No, the best thing that can be done at this point is to get the general government out of the health care/health insurance market to the greatest possible extent, not let more of the camel into the tent and let them have more say so that they can make the existing bad situation even worse than it was before.

Agree in principle, but the federal government should have some very strict regulations to make sure that private insurers don't rape the public. I don't trust private corporations to do the right thing if it means there is less profit in it.

With regards to Nixon, would you like to try and convince us that Nixon wasn't interested in the accumulation and the exercise of power by the federal government? He may have aligned himself with the Republican Party, but there is little difference between Nixon and FDR with regards to ignoring what the law is in favor of creating a new law for a new day because they think the law should be different from what it actually is.

Sorry, I don't follow. Nixon proposed Health Care Reform and it was killed by Kennedy. I'm not sure what else you are talking about here except it sounds as if you are trying to say that Nixon was a democrat and Kennedy was a republican. Sorry, but that's just wrong.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, there is something to at least partially keep things under control in the bill. There will be a yearly singing up period to get health insurance, similar to Medicare. You just can't get sick or injured and then immediately get health insurance. You'll have to wait for the sign up period.

So the only way I can see someone taking advantage of the insurance is if they have an elective surgery coming up. They could wait a few months or up to a year until the sign up period, get insurance, then get the surgery. But I'd think they'd still have to disclose it to the insurance company, and that could make the insurance cost more.

pineinthegrass wrote: Regarding pre-existing conditions, there is something to at least partially keep things under control in the bill. There will be a yearly singing up period to get health insurance, similar to Medicare. You just can't get sick or injured and then immediately get health insurance. You'll have to wait for the sign up period.

So the only way I can see someone taking advantage of the insurance is if they have an elective surgery coming up. They could wait a few months or up to a year until the sign up period, get insurance, then get the surgery. But I'd think they'd still have to disclose it to the insurance company, and that could make the insurance cost more.

You could still easily game the system, suppose you know your knees are shot or almost gone, sign up for insurance, keep it for a year, get your knees replaced, then drop it 6 months after the expensive surgeries.

FredHayek wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote: Regarding pre-existing conditions, there is something to at least partially keep things under control in the bill. There will be a yearly singing up period to get health insurance, similar to Medicare. You just can't get sick or injured and then immediately get health insurance. You'll have to wait for the sign up period.

So the only way I can see someone taking advantage of the insurance is if they have an elective surgery coming up. They could wait a few months or up to a year until the sign up period, get insurance, then get the surgery. But I'd think they'd still have to disclose it to the insurance company, and that could make the insurance cost more.

You could still easily game the system, suppose you know your knees are shot or almost gone, sign up for insurance, keep it for a year, get your knees replaced, then drop it 6 months after the expensive surgeries.

Unless you know something I don't, I'm not certain that could be done. I still think you'd have to disclose it, and pay extra. If you don't disclose it, my guess is they won't pay.

But we have to read the bill to find out what's in it.

towermonkey wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Every insurance problem can be laid right at the feet of the general government. Group policies for companies are generally more expensive than a comparable single policy because the government passed a law that said when a company changes insurance companies the new company is not allowed to exclude or deny coverage based on preexisting conditions. The reason most are insured through a group policy is because the federal government froze wages and encouraged the companies to offer health insurance as a way of getting around their interference in the wage negotiations between employer and employee.

Can you support this? This is exactly the opposite of what I've found when pricing policies. Also, how did the federal government "freeze" wages? Are you talking strictly about government jobs?

No, I'm talking about the period during and after WWII. During the war the government froze wages and prices on goods, but companies still wanted to attract and retain the best available talent for their operations, so they took advantage of a "loophole" in the government wage laws and started paying for health insurance, pensions and paid holidays. Since these were not direct cash payments to the employees, and thus non-inflationary in the eyes of the policy wonks then populating the general government, they didn't fall under the wage controls enacted by FDR's executive order. Once the war was over, there was still a period of time under Truman where wages and prices were under government control and the "fringe benefits" offerings expanded as returning GIs started entering the private workforce again and companies were competing for their services. Then the government started offering tax incentives to companies which offered the benefits, but not to those who purchased an individual insurance policy, which is why your health insurance got to be tied to your job and why you started losing your health insurance when you lost your job. Your company was offering it as a benefit, so it was the company's policy, not yours. Thus the whole problem of losing your insurance when you change or lose your job has it roots in the policies of the general government and its intrusion into the employer/employee relationship.

This is also where the government intrusion into education began, as the government realized that if all of the released veterans entered the workforce en masse, they would skyrocket the unemployment rate while industry transitioned from war to peacetime production. They needed a place to park these men for a few years while that transition took place, so they parked them in the university system and paid for their tuition to encourage them to not enter the workforce immediately upon returning home from the war. This was explained by none other than Harry Truman himself in the first volume of his two volume autobiography. I don't have the book in front of me, but I can source the reference if need be

When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, Social Security and federal education grants are really designed to be little more than continuous federal jobs programs. By offering a government pension starting at a certain age, the government gets older workers out of the system making way for younger workers, who are the ones actually paying for the pensions of the retired workers, to enter the workforce. And the educational grants are a continuation of the federal policy designed to delay entrance into the job market first used to keep unemployment under control once the Second World War was won. Look at the new requirement to have adults 26 and under attached to their parents health insurance policies and you see a continuation of this federal interventionist trend that got its start during the reign of FDR. Something else remains consistent as well - the more the general government intrudes in an effort to consolidate more power within itself, the more FUBAR the system becomes, the more expensive it becomes, and the more corrupt it becomes. That isn't a coincidence, its the result of the inherent corruption which accompanies the congregation of power into fewer and fewer entities until all power has been consolidated into a single entity. Monopolies are never a desired outcome, monopoly of government the least desirable of all.

towermonkey wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: No, the best thing that can be done at this point is to get the general government out of the health care/health insurance market to the greatest possible extent, not let more of the camel into the tent and let them have more say so that they can make the existing bad situation even worse than it was before.

Agree in principle, but the federal government should have some very strict regulations to make sure that private insurers don't rape the public. I don't trust private corporations to do the right thing if it means there is less profit in it.

Funny thing about that, did you know that physicians used to price discriminate based upon ability to pay before the advent of health insurance? Those who could pay more were charged more, which enabled the doctor to charge less to those who could afford less and still take in enough money to make a living? Those strict federal restrictions put an end to that in a hurry though, didn't they. Now the cost is the same for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, and Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public are the ones who are footing the bill both in the increased premiums and the increased taxes they pay. Quite the favor the general government did for us in that regard with their burdensome and intrusive policies, don't you think? Time was when the largest cost associated with becoming ill had to do with the amount of wages one lost while they were ill, not the cost of being treated - the main reason why the national health care push in the early part of the last century failed. But we sure fixed that right up by letting the government get its nose into the tent and now the cost of being treated is far beyond the costs associated with missing a few weeks of work while hospitalized. That's certainly "progress", don't you think?

Yes indeed, progress without ever fully exploring or exploring but not accepting the results the research shows. There is a common pattern as you've established PS. That pattern exists in evolution, in science and in personal lives as well. The problem is there are always people who willingly ignore dire warning signs, disregard what history has to teach.