Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[MrsSpringsteen]

I wonder what the unemployment rate is in Arizona. Must not be too bad, if they have time to spend on this stuff.

I actually believe in an religious exemption for RELIGIOUS institutions. Many Democrats do, Ted Kennedy did. Think that could be worked out for the best for all involved, if people were actually interested in that. Not in extending that to some vague all encompassing "moral objections" from mom and pop and every employer. That is very dangerous, and this AZ thing is just the beginning. I believe we live in America too, where women still have the right to medical privacy and the right to be treated with dignity. And to be treated like adults, not children. And not to be shamed about their adult private lives by mom and pop.

I wonder if they are concerning themselves with any moral objections to Viagra. Or vasectomies. Stuff like that.

[yolland]

^ Remember, Viagra is never used for non-medical conditions, the way contraception is. It's only ever used to treat the grave physical suffering and harm caused by not being able to get it up like you used to. Let's not confuse that with elective, lifestyle "treatments" that are in truth only being pursued to benefit the patient's sex life.

[BVS]

Is it possible that Arizona is surpassing Texas as the state moving backwards the fastest?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by yolland

^ Remember, Viagra is never used for non-medical conditions, the way contraception is. It's only ever used to treat the grave physical suffering and harm caused by not being able to get it up like you used to. Let's not confuse that with elective, lifestyle "treatments" that are in truth only being pursued to benefit the patient's sex life.

Well this may not be true. There are some doctors that have prescribed it for severe "circulation issues", BUT it's rare and very questionable. Years ago there was a controversy about this in the medical community, I'm not sure how prevelant this is today

[yolland]

No problem then, just bring the boss a note from the doctor explaining you need a penile vasodilator for your pulmonary hypertension. Can't imagine why that would embarrass anybody.

[corianderstem]

I would also imagine there would be plenty of doctors perfectly happy to write a note for a woman patient saying that they're taking the pill for some non-contraceptive use, even if that's not the case.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by yolland

No problem then, just bring the boss a note from the doctor explaining you need a penile vasodilator for your pulmonary hypertension. Can't imagine why that would embarrass anybody.

Exactly, that was part of the controversy was that there are circulation drugs that cost the same that aren't viagra and are approved for said issues.

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I would also imagine there would be plenty of doctors perfectly happy to write a note for a woman patient saying that they're taking the pill for some non-contraceptive use, even if that's not the case.

And this is part of the problem. Just like the issue above you have too many doctors that are willing to lie in order for it to get covered. When I was in the industry I would see doctors doing this on a daily basis.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

I would also imagine there would be plenty of doctors perfectly happy to write a note for a woman patient saying that they're taking the pill for some non-contraceptive use, even if that's not the case.

I would think so too. Just one among many other reasons that this AZ thing is a joke, even setting aside how offensive it is.

As for the religious liberty thing, I don't feel that my religious liberties are being taken away. Doesn't affect me personally but I still don't think so. Especially when you consider that the vast majority of Catholics use contraception, contrary to church teachings. Even with a religious exemption for religious institutions, I believe that medical non contraceptive use should be paid for and protected. And there are all kinds of possible problems and issues with that too.

I don't believe in politicizing the health of women or in controlling our health and personal lives, or in any sort of daddy state. It ticks me off. Daddy state=ok Nanny state/mommy state=not ok

[Canadiens1131]

Sorry, Indy. You are mistaken.

The ten-year number seems to jump only because the time frame for the estimate has moved, dropping one year, 2011, and adding another, 2022. Obamacare has virtually no outlays in 2011, because the Medicaid expansion and subsidies don’t start up until 2014, which means the shifting time frame drops a year of no implementation and adds one of full implementation.

Jonathan Cohn: No, Obamacare’s Cost Didn’t Just Double. Sigh. | The New Republic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7HYNMfWpHg

Sorry to gleefully shit on your point.

This is also what your source's article on the CBO estimate looks like now:

Originally Posted by INDY500

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...fidential/cbo-.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Third, turning health care into a political football is reason # five hundred and forty three why health insurance should be bought by the individual and not acquired through their employer or government.

That is a good reason, I think. Individuals choosing their own medical insurance policy without any mandatory policy forced upon them by their employer (or the government). Have the insurance companies offer a basic insurance of about $150/month which covers the basic things (for generic, medical necessary hospital admittance, visits to the GP, essential medication, etc.) with choices for additional coverage.
Have the insurance companies compete with each other, so the individual has an actual choice. It's still mandatory to be insured, but with competition costs can be lower (as well as the monthly premiums) and service will hopefully be important too.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Third, turning health care into a political football is reason # five hundred and forty three why health insurance should be bought by the individual and not acquired through their employer or government.

Indeed, the current employer-based healthcare system in the US was a fluke of combined unintended consequences.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

That is a good reason, I think. Individuals choosing their own medical insurance policy without any mandatory policy forced upon them by their employer (or the government). Have the insurance companies offer a basic insurance of about $150/month which covers the basic things (for generic, medical necessary hospital admittance, visits to the GP, essential medication, etc.) with choices for additional coverage.
Have the insurance companies compete with each other, so the individual has an actual choice. It's still mandatory to be insured, but with competition costs can be lower (as well as the monthly premiums) and service will hopefully be important too.

Exactly, plus, high deductables will reintroduce free-market pricing for most medical purchases as patients shop around for price and hospitals, clinics and pharmacies compete for customers.

Too bad all this:

1) makes too much sense
2) takes power away from politicians and gives it to individuals (not popular right now)
3) could be so easily demagogued

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

Sorry, Indy. You are mistaken.

Simply going by CBO estimates and when you figure in what CBO isn't allowed to like the "Doc Fix," the double accounting, the Medicare cuts that will never happen, the rosy tax revenue projections and the under estimate of how many Americans will lose their current health care coverage... I'm can still say with 100% certainty that... just like Soc Sec, Medicaid, Medicare, and every other federal entitlement passed in the past 100 years...

...Obamacare will cost many, many times more than originally estimated.

[digitize]

How does one "have the insurance companies offer a basic insurance of about $150/month" while not mandating anything and keeping everything in the free market work, exactly? An unregulated health insurance market would probably be pretty oligopolistic.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Exactly, plus, high deductables will reintroduce free-market pricing for most medical purchases as patients shop around for price and hospitals, clinics and pharmacies compete for customers.

Too bad all this:

1) makes too much sense
2) takes power away from politicians and gives it to individuals (not popular right now)
3) could be so easily demagogued

It's too bad that neither party is proposing this.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by digitize

How does one "have the insurance companies offer a basic insurance of about $150/month" while not mandating anything and keeping everything in the free market work, exactly? An unregulated health insurance market would probably be pretty oligopolistic.

What do you mean with "not mandating anything"? I meant with "without any mandatory policy forced upon them by their employer (or the government)" that no employer should force you to buy insurance from company ABC or XYZ just because they have an arrangement with that company. However, "[i]t's still mandatory to be insured" so if you're not going with the option offered by the employer, you still have to choose another policy.

And how would "[a]n unregulated health insurance market [...] probably be pretty oligopolistic"? The market would maybe not be totally unregulated. And besides, anti-trust laws also apply to those insurance companies.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Must be great to have a govt health plan like Dick Cheney's. I don't see how anyone with substandard or no health insurance would still be alive if they had his health problems.

Huffington Post

Health Care Mandate Will Affect Few, Study Finds



WASHINGTON -- Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the aspect of health care reform at the center of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court this week -- the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.

Including those who are subject to the mandate, but would get subsidies, increases the total number of people affected to 5 percent of the population, according to the Urban Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization based in Washington, D.C. (Some of those subject to the mandate who get subsidies would still need to dig into their pocket to cover the difference.)

Opponents of the mandate argue that it infringes on personal liberty by requiring the unwanted purchase of something from a private entity. Backers say the mandate is constitutional because everyone consumes health care services at some point, so it is reasonable to tax people who consume care without paying for it.

The Urban Institute study indicates that such a tax, or fine, would be levied on a small population.

Health care reform prevents insurers from discriminating against patients with pre-existing conditions and caps premiums that can be charged. The only way to accomplish such reform, backers say, is to require healthy people to insure themselves, rather than wait until they get sick.

The court spent Monday debating whether to delay a decision in the case, with the justices appearing to be intent on ruling this year.

Tuesday the court weighs the constitutionality of the individual mandate. HuffPost's Mike Sacks reports:

During today's two-hour argument -- twice as long as the 60 minutes the court usually allots each case -- the justices will pepper each side's superlawyers with questions that will give public hints of how they will ultimately decide the case by late-June.

The court's four Democratic appointees -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan -- are all expected to side with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's primary argument on behalf of President Barack Obama's administration that the mandate falls within Congress' broad power to regulate interstate commerce. The inevitable consumption of health care services by the uninsured, Verrilli will argue, substantially affects the national insurance market by shifting costs to the insured and creating the problem of skyrocketing premiums that the Affordable Care Act was designed to solve.

Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, need not break his six-year streak of silence at oral argument to reiterate his oft-written antipathy towards the New Deal precedents Verrilli's argument draws upon for support.

So while there is always a vanishingly slim chance that one or two of the liberal justices will surprise the public with some pointed questions for the solicitor general, it is more likely that they will try to win over their remaining four conservative colleagues by putting the screws into the challengers' lawyers.

[Swan269]

I am all for the government taking over the Health Care system, I mean all of Europe does it and things seem to be working great. I don't ever hear from them complaining about there health care systems, hell Bono went to Germany to get his back fixed and didn't come to the US so we don't know how to do everything.

As far as I know, the US is the only country lame enough not to have a health care system where only the uber rich can get good health care and the rest of us can't even get band aids without having to get a second mortgage.

My step dad worked for the Veterans Administration for over 35 years and raves about how great the care was for our veterans. He worked with the budgets for hospitals and told me that nothing runs smoother than when the government handles these facilites. And talk about the efficiency, I mean clock work orange fellows!

I trust our government to do whats best for me, hell I elected these people right?

With smart intelligence, how I pray the supreme court does the right thing for real change in this ever evolving pursuit of utopia, which is the United States.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by Swan269

My step dad worked for the Veterans Administration for over 35 years and raves about how great the care was for our veterans. He worked with the budgets for hospitals and told me that nothing runs smoother than when the government handles these facilities. And talk about the efficiency, I mean clock work orange fellows!

I trust our government to do whats best for me, hell I elected these people right?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic there, seems like maybe? No offense to your step dad but I think the VA is terrible. Just knowing what I know about it from the care a family member has gotten there.

I don't trust the govt to do what's best for me, I've become very cynical about govt. But I do believe in universal/affordable health care. MA has had it for years, including a mandate, and it seems to be working fairly well.

[deep]

Of course the VA has some problems, but for the amount of medical coverage they provide, and at the costs, it is very effective and efficient.

people that don't like it, can opt out and go provide, and pay those costs.

many people choose to opt out of government provided schools and go private