Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
Doctors can’t work as an unregulated market because health care is not like a can of soup on your supermarket shelf.
Click to expand...
Hence run away cost vs deterioration of service and lessing of overall care distribution.
 
austenbosten said:
Practically every market. Do you know full well the knowledge of what goes into your food? or how cars are made and run? Are you full well knowing if you need college or not? or if you need portfolio insurance if you are investing only in bonds. Do you have intricate knowledge of the Securities market? Do you know if you really need that hybrid car or would you be better off buying a used one or a diesel, or no car at all and just take public transportation…do you know what the final cost of investing in risky securities? You could be wiped out or worse owe money if you shorted a stock. Do you know what the final cost of operating a restaurant that gives several customers food poisoning thus causing them to sue you over and over…

Yes every market has risks, ignorance, known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
Click to expand...
I’m specifically talking about knowledge of costs, not how the human body runs or how doctors’ minds work. In all of those examples you give, one has a choice to buy or not to buy to participate or not participate, without risking one’s life. THAT is not the case for health care. The susceptibility of human beings to illness is not something they can voluntarily assume or reject, it comes with being human.
 
stevegravy said:
Hence run away cost vs deterioration of service and lessing of overall care distribution.
Click to expand...
How about standard, quality service at reasonable cost? There is an option between those two extremes and yes, other developed countries have experimented and found it. Their comparable life expectancies (to our own) are proof of it.
 
seekerz said:
What indeed? Perhaps uniformly low rates (read reasonable and at least tangentially related to the actual cost of providing services).
Click to expand...
Hmm…price fixing is your solution? If prices were reasonable, there would be no need for the massive amounts of insurance and no need for ObamaTax to begin with. :whacky:

If the government could just price fix medical costs, then why pass a huge mess of a law? Either one, that’s not an option, or two, it’s a governmental power grab. (or three the government wants to drive us all crazy. I’m pretty sure it’s number three, but no proof.:p)
 
seekerz said:
I’m specifically talking about knowledge of costs, not how the human body runs or how doctors’ minds work. In all of those examples you give, one has a choice to buy or not to buy to participate or not participate, without risking one’s life. THAT is not the case for health care. The susceptibility of human beings to illness is not something they can voluntarily assume or reject, it comes with being human.
Click to expand...
So you know full well what the cost of your car will be when it is involved in an auto accident.:rolleyes:

As to Health Care being the only market where you have no choice to participate or not…you mean like the food market…you have a choice not to eat and it won’t risk your life…or the housing market…you can just live out in the elements and not have it risk your life:rolleyes:

Your argument is pretty weak my friend.
 
MSNBC host wonders aloud why Obama campaign won’t release post-Obamacare ruling fundraising numbers [VIDEO]
MSNBC’s Chris Jansing wondered aloud Friday morning why President Barack Obama is being so quiet about his fundraising numbers.
Click to expand...
Following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Obama’s health care law, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign took in a whopping $4.3 million in under 24 hours.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign has been almost completely silent, with spokesman Ben LaBolt mysteriously gloating to reporters, “We’ve outraised the Romney campaign in that time period but that’s not the point,” according to The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein. LaBolt wouldn’t share any specific numbers Friday morning.
Click to expand...
“The Obama camp has not released fundraising figures since the ruling. Do you think, Chris, they’re not revealing it because there’s not that much money coming in?” Jansing asked guest Chris Kofinis during her program.
Click to expand...
“Or,” Jansing threw out, “I don’t know, maybe it’s pouring in and they don’t want potential donors to think they don’t need to give because they’re already getting so much. What’s going on there?”
Click to expand...
Kofinis, a Democratic strategist, responded that the Obama campaign was quiet about the fundraising numbers because “to the president, and to the Democrats, this wasn’t about politics.”
Click to expand...
dailycaller.com/2012/06/29/msnbc-host-wonders-aloud-why-obama-campaign-wont-release-post-obamacare-ruling-fundraising-numbers-video/#ixzz1zDK1duho
 
seekerz said:
Does personal responsibility make your lab tests/xrays cost less?

Things are ‘supposed to work’ the way we craft them. Human systems are meant to serve our needs - not the other way around.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

I don’t know if you are being obtuse on purpose or what.

If insurance wasn’t expected to pay for every little ailment people ran to the doctor for, I bet the price of insurance premiums, lab tests, x-rays, etc. would all go down. People would think twice about going to the doctor unless they had something seriously wrong.

Secondly, the premise of insurance is it is meant for unforseen things.
 
austenbosten said:
So you know full well what the cost of your car will be when it is involved in an auto accident.:rolleyes:

As to Health Care being the only market where you have no choice to participate or not…you mean like the food market…you have a choice not to eat and it won’t risk your life…or the housing market…you can just live out in the elements and not have it risk your life:rolleyes:

Your argument is pretty weak my friend.
Click to expand...
People being “forced” to buy auto insurance is totally different than what’s proposed for healthcare…

First, it is done at a state level.

Secondly, prices are reasonable and there as there is competition

Lastly - You don’t submit a claim for routine maintainence. I bet if submitted a claim every time you had an oil change your premiums would go up.

Of course it’s moot - you could not buy a car.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
People being “forced” to buy auto insurance is totally different than what’s proposed for healthcare…

First, it is done at a state level.

Secondly, prices are reasonable and there as there is competition

Lastly - You don’t submit a claim for routine maintainence. I bet if submitted a claim every time you had an oil change your premiums would go up.

Of course it’s moot - you could not buy a car.
Click to expand...
Okay but can you say the same about a house? Can you live on the streets? Do you know what the cost of fixing your house will be in a storm? or if a car crashes in your house?

How about just simply calling in the exterminator in order to deal with the spiders and the Orkin man finds your house has a serious termite problem and your house is in danger of collapsing and you need to replace part of the housing frame and fumigate to kill the termites…will one know the full costs?

As for competition there is, but you have to take into fact the state and federal government’s keep pushing mandates that prevent small insurance companies from starting up. The health insurance market thanks to gov’t involvement are about as competitive as the flood insurance market.
 
seekerz said:
How about standard, quality service at reasonable cost? There is an option between those two extremes and yes, other developed countries have experimented and found it. Their comparable life expectancies (to our own) are proof of it.
Click to expand...
It is a nice hope but doesn’t work that way. Standards vary all over this country usually in terms of what practitioners can earn. Antidotal again: In this area 5 of the largest employers tried, through a mutual insurance group, to cut reimbursement to doctors. This was 25-30 years ago. As a result all the doctors who could, left for more lucrative positions in other parts of the country. Amazing things, you find out when you have relatives on the inside. As a result, according to my doctor want a be offspring, this area is about 5 years behind everyone else in standards of health care for most ailments. Her reference point is the east coast. This area is still better off than other parts of the country but a shame just the same.

For medicine as in any walk of life economic laws rule. There are very few economic laws lots of theories. One is Capital seeks its highest return on investment relative to acceptable risk. The second is workers always seek their highest compensation only relative to their internal valuation. So in short you get what you pay for.
 
meltzerboy said:
There is no beyond a second term for Obama: the GOP can take some consolation in that much. And I don’t think the decision is at all a guarantee for Obama’s re-election. It all depends on how each candidate frames the Supreme Court ruling, and of course the state of the economy is still the central issue, as well as immigration reform.
Click to expand...
Well, Chief Kangaroo Roberts might just discover that the 22nd Amendment is a *suggestion*, not a mandate, if it is challenged. :dancing:
 
stevegravy said:
It is a nice hope but doesn’t work that way. Standards vary all over this country usually in terms of what practitioners can earn. Antidotal again: In this area 5 of the largest employers tried, through a mutual insurance group, to cut reimbursement to doctors. This was 25-30 years ago. As a result all the doctors who could, left for more lucrative positions in other parts of the country. Amazing things, you find out when you have relatives on the inside. As a result, according to my doctor want a be offspring, this area is about 5 years behind everyone else in standards of health care for most ailments. Her reference point is the east coast. This area is still better off than other parts of the country but a shame just the same.

For medicine as in any walk of life economic laws rule. There are very few economic laws lots of theories. One is Capital seeks its highest return on investment relative to acceptable risk. The second is workers always seek their highest compensation only relative to their internal valuation. So in short you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
Your example would not turn out the same way if it had been employed across the country.

Costs have to be controlled - whether doctors like it or not; eventually they’ll catch up to that realization. Otherwise you’re saying that we must pay whatever they charge however high costs go…

BTW, the rest of the developed world has already shown us that they can get as much as we do - for less. Quality DOES NOT have to decline with reimbursement. That is just another empty threat by those used to having carte blanche.
 
RACJ said:
Well, Chief Kangaroo Roberts might just discover that the 22nd Amendment is a suggestion, not a mandate, if it is challenged. :dancing:
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl::rotfl: It’s not funny to talk about the death of America but it’s either this or crying.
 
seekerz said:
Your example would not turn out the same way if it had been employed across the country.

Costs have to be controlled - whether doctors like it or not; eventually they’ll catch up to that realization. Otherwise you’re saying that we must pay whatever they charge however high costs go…

BTW, the rest of the developed world has already shown us that they can get as much as we do - for less. Quality DOES NOT have to decline with reimbursement. That is just another empty threat by those used to having carte blanche.
Click to expand...
And I think you are naive about supply and demand. No matter how big the demand the supply ain’t going to be there is there is no remuneration. Just sayin’ unless you bring back slavery.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
:rolleyes:

I don’t know if you are being obtuse on purpose or what.

If insurance wasn’t expected to pay for every little ailment people ran to the doctor for, I bet the price of insurance premiums, lab tests, x-rays, etc. would all go down. People would think twice about going to the doctor unless they had something seriously wrong.

Secondly, the premise of insurance is it is meant for unforseen things.
Click to expand...
(emphasis, mine)

Me being obtuse? Read that bolded sentence again. 🤷
 
stevegravy said:
And I think you are naive about supply and demand. No matter how big the demand the supply ain’t going to be there is there is no remuneration. Just sayin’ unless you bring back slavery.
Click to expand...
Lincoln “freed” the chattel slaves of the south and enslaved the entire country in the process by stomping on the Constitution and implementing an Imperial Presidency.
 
stevegravy said:
And I think you are naive about supply and demand. No matter how big the demand the supply ain’t going to be there is there is no remuneration. Just sayin’ unless you bring back slavery.
Click to expand...
Naive about supply and demand? I would say that pretty accurately describes the people who think that health costs go down with any type of behavior among consumers…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top