Is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" Constitutional?

425 posts / 0 new

Comments

Another person called into Thom's program last Friday that said he make over $900,000 a year as a consultant for his clients to obtain 'cost-cutting health care policies'. Thom pointed out that that probably exceeds the income of most doctors that actually take care of patients (I know it exceeds mine) and how did that person think that his job was all that important--but, that person just responded with some quip about how great the American system was.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

Was that you, Capital?

Nope.

I was afraid of that. There's more ignorant and lying shills about 'free market' and the American application of medical care--which is truly a collusion between government subsidizing and corporations profitting--than I would like to hear.....

Quote Capital:

As he should have. Not too many people are arguing that Government doesn't retain the right regulate the economy through the commerce Clause. Except your and now apparently Thom Fallacious arguments

So, you have no problem with how government controls who gets to practice medicine, how government controls how the industry applies medicine, and how government, at least in some aspects (remember the Mayo Clinic in Arizona), controls the costs of medicine (and, as that $900,000/yr. consultant above implies, even insurance companies 'control the cost of medicine')? Or what part of what government does do you have a problem with, Capital? I mean, when you first came in here, you were all about 'free markets' and against any 'government intervention'. Now, you are all for government being involved in accordance with the Commerce Clause. What does that mean exactly? And, isn't Obamacare being touted as being a government intervention right in line with the Commerce Clause? Then, why are you 'acting like' you are against it? Is that just to make excuses for this supposed 'free market' industry to suck more out of the economy--and, then, blame government for it? I think so.....just like the home mortgage industry and its financial crisis 'caused by government'.....

Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

Of course, Thom could have tried directing this person's mantra of 'free market in medicine' by asking the hard questions that I have tried to ask here. If a person presents with a life or limb threatening ailment, in the 'free market' way of running things, are they to be prevented from having 'the product' because they cannot pay

Why don't you call Thom, You two can sit around ass slapping each other fuilled with your superiority. You both clearly like talking about everything BUT the actual issues.

If it is not patients presenting with life and limb threatening ailments as representing the 'actual issues' in the application of medical care in America, Capital, what is 'the actual issue'? And, instead of ignoring it, why don't YOU address the question as to what to do with them, Capital? Let 'government pay for it'--and, then, claim that is 'the free market'? Like the lying shill that you are....

Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

I mean, it's not 'cost shifting' to you to have a taxpayer have government pay for someone else's medical 'product' as they, then, have to turn around and become a consumer and purchase 'the product' separately (apparently, according to you as part of this distortion in the mantra of the 'free market', now through insurance companies) for themselves, is it, Capital?

Still stupid I see.

As I said, like the ignorant lying shill that you are. When it comes to 'actual issues' here, Capital, are you saying that there are no people that get medical care for free at no cost to them and that there are no people that pay other people to get it for free that, now, have to turn around and buy it separately for themselves? Are you saying that that doesn't exist as an 'actual issue'?

And, then, of course, you ignore the rest of that statement:

In your own delusional analysis called the 'free market', 'cost shifting' is not based on who does the paying--but who gets paid--right, Capital? I mean, as long as the Mayo Clinic in Arizona is satisfied with how much Medicare pays them, it doesn't matter that some still get the medical 'product' at no charge to them--while others have to hesitate at the door for fear of going bankrupt. And those hesitating at the door have, through their taxes, helped 'cover the costs' of those that can get it for free. Should government 'play favorites' when it comes to deciding who can get medical care--the 'medical product'--for free, Capital? Should insurance companies 'play favorites' by having only those that pay directly get 'the medical product' at all? The real basic question to medical care is should it be 'medicine for all'--or only a product offered to those who pay for it? What does your mantra on the 'free market' really say, Capital? What question do you want to ignore--and what way do you want to distort and misinform as you don't answer the basic questions facing the application of medical care in America?

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, I thought a true 'free market' was based on 'choice'. How many people with life or limb threatening illnesses do you think choose that? How does a 'free market' really address this as a 'choice'--when the one presenting can see it as a need? Or, is that just another aspect of this 'product' that lying shills like yourself, Capital, 'choose' to ignore, distract, and misinform with under your mantra of 'free market' in the application of medical care in America?

None of that are 'real issues' in this, Capital? Or are you just trying to deflect the conversation away from really addressing the 'real issues' as you continue your lying shill mantra that this is all 'free market' priorities.....as if this were a 'free market'......but, it is a market that government subsidizes as corporations profit off of it--and, then, shills like you claim 'government is the problem'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I was afraid of that. There's more ignorant and lying shills about 'free market' and the American application of medical care--which is truly a collusion between government subsidizing and corporations profitting--than I would like to hear.....

I imagine Fear is a driving motivator for you

So, you have no problem with how government controls who gets to practice medicine, how government controls how the industry applies medicine, and how government, at least in some aspects (remember the Mayo Clinic in Arizona), controls the costs of medicine (and, as that $900,000/yr. consultant above implies, even insurance companies 'control the cost of medicine')?

You had me up until "controls the cost of medicine" Clearly I DO have a problem with that.
Sorry, I do not take a phone call into Thoms as a credible source.

I mean, when you first came in here, you were all about 'free markets' and against any 'government intervention'. Now, you are all for government being involved in accordance with the Commerce Clause.

Your stupidity is without bounds. If you truely do not understand 8 pages worth of material, May god have mercy on your patients

If it is not patients presenting with life and limb threatening ailments as representing the 'actual issues' in the application of medical care in America, Capital, what is 'the actual issue'?

Government Cost shifting. Fot now the 100th time.

, instead of ignoring it, why don't YOU address the question as to what to do with them, Capital? Let 'government pay for it'--and, then, claim that is 'the free market'?

You mean how I ALREADY addressed it multiple times and you are too Fucking stupid to read. AS PER MY PLAN. EMTALA uncompensiated care is covered by Medicaid.

None of that are 'real issues' in this, Capital?

I love how you qoute yourself.. Arguing against me, to prove an argument against me. Your delusion is beyond pale.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, then, of course, you ignore the rest of that statement:

I'm getting in the habit of igoring meaningless trollish posts. Someday you might like having a big boy discussion instead of these bouts of ridiculous mental puke you spew all over the thread

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

I imagine Fear is a driving motivator for you

Fear? Fear of what, Capital? Am I missing something here, Capital? Is that some vague threat on your part? I only have concern and contempt over your lying shill tactics claiming to responsibly address the 'real issues' concerning the application of medical care in America.....speaking of which:

Quote Capital:

You had me up until "controls the cost of medicine" Clearly I DO have a problem with that.
Sorry, I do not take a phone call into Thoms as a credible source.

Have a problem in what way, Capital? Government 'controlling costs'--or insurance industry consultant's 'controlliing costs'--and making a big profit off of that? Are you saying you don't think that the health insurance industry 'controls costs'? How do you think that CEO's can make millions--if not hundreds of millions--of dollars in this 'industry'? By paying what the Mayo Clinic in Arizona says 'its costs' are? When all the health insurance industry does with Medicare is cover the 20% of Medicare's allowable charge that Medicare pays 80% of. Why doesn't it step up to the bat and pay all the costs that Medicare doesn't cover for the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Capital? Is that because health insurance industry's CONTROL THE COST? I suspect so--and, then, lie when they claim they 'cover more of the costs' of the kidney dialysis industry when government pays $18 billion of what is paid for in kidney dialysis as the insurance industry only pays $6 billion to that industry by your own statistics (of course, claiming that the insurance industry 'pays more for each dialysis'--but, then, doesn't say how much that insurance industry 'pays for each year's worth of dialysis' like it cited the government paid for--like the manipulating lying shills that you are....).

Quote Capital:

Your stupidity is without bounds. If you truely do not understand 8 pages worth of material, May god have mercy on your patients

And that of course 'explains it', doesn't it, Capital? Distort, distract, dismiss--is that the plan of the lying shills, Capital? How much do you get paid to do that?

Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

If it is not patients presenting with life and limb threatening ailments as representing the 'actual issues' in the application of medical care in America, Capital, what is 'the actual issue'?

Government Cost shifting. Fot now the 100th time.

And, of course, is that the 'cost shifting' that involves government paying for some to get it for free as others not only pay taxes for that but, then, have to turn around as consumers and purchase it separately for themselves? That 'cost shifting', Capital? And, why is government paying for any of it if this is the 'free market' you say it is, Capital? What part of this is the 'free market'? Since you have determined government to be the problem in the way that they pay, why is government paying at all in this 'free market', Capital? It apparently is not to address what you would do in this 'free market' without government with a person with a life or limb threatening ailment that cannot pay. Other than endorse government covering for that so that the corporate industry can profit off the rest.....is that your 'free market', Capital?

Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

, instead of ignoring it, why don't YOU address the question as to what to do with them, Capital? Let 'government pay for it'--and, then, claim that is 'the free market'?

You mean how I ALREADY addressed it multiple times and you are too Fucking stupid to read. AS PER MY PLAN. EMTALA uncompensiated care is covered by Medicaid.

In your typical distorting, distracting, dismissing, manner as the lying shill that you are, Capital, you are still ignoring the point. How does your 'EMTALA uncompensated care being covered by Medicaid' represent, in any way, a 'free market'? Maybe, like you have never done before, you need to define what a 'free market' is--and, then, describe how 'EMTALA uncompensated care being covered by Medicaid' represents that 'free market'. More to the point, does a 'free market' deal only with those that can buy 'the product' or not? And, if government is 'buying the product' for some people, how does that, in any way, represent that 'free market'? Or, do you have a definition of 'free market' that doesn't have each person buying the products they obtain? But, instead, has government 'buying it for them'? And, more to that point, would you have any other market do that? Say education or police forces? Is government to 'buy' any of those 'products'? In those cases, when government does so, it offers it to everyone, doesn't it? Why doesn't government do that here? And, if you are to say that government is to buy the product, anyway, but not do that here, why not? Is that so government can subsidize the most expensive patients so that corporations can capitalize on the rest for profits? What does any of that have to do with a real 'free market'?

Quote Capital:

I'm getting in the habit of igoring meaningless trollish posts. Someday you might like having a big boy discussion instead of these bouts of ridiculous mental puke you spew all over the thread

You know, when I call you a lying shilll dipshit that you are, I think that, right in that statement, I'm explaining exactly why I call you that. Do you show the same courtesy for me, Capital? No, because you do more to distort, distract, and dismiss, than you do really explaining yourself--even when it comes to any real issue that could be seen as a 'free market' against 'government intervention' because, when it comes down to it, you don't have a real issue with that--only your typical lying shill distorting, distracting, and dismissing tactics....and I know why you ignore the rest of my comments on that previous post, you have no real answer addressing any real issue that the application of medical care in America faces. Especially when it concerns how any of your concepts that could even claim any semblance to a consistent 'free market' really would deal with persons who present with life or limb threatening ailments that cannot pay.....only to add 'government pays for them'--and how that represents, in any true meaning of the term, a 'free market', I have no idea (and neither do you--but, then, you don't have to because you're basically a distorting, distracting, dismissing, lying shill dipshit, anyway). And, remember, is it 'cost shifting' to have government pay for some people's medical care for free to them while others have to pay for that and, then, pay for themselves separately? And, despite any of that 'cost shifting', how does that represent the 'free market' in any way....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Fear? Fear of what, Capital? Am I missing something here, Capital? Is that some vague threat on your part? I only have concern and contempt over your lying shill tactics claiming to responsibly address the 'real issues' concerning the application of medical care in America.....speaking of which:

you sound frightened....

Have a problem in what way, Capital?

Were all those retorical questions or was there an actual question in there?

How does your 'EMTALA uncompensated care being covered by Medicaid' represent, in any way, a 'free market'?

I am so tired of the level of sheering stupidity out of you.... We already dicided this free market bullshit is a fantasy of your own creation. Sorry... You no longer warrent the respect of having a discussion with. I'm not repeating myslf again.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

So, if you are, now, not talking of a 'free market', what sort of 'market' are you talking about, Capital? What lying shill form of distortion, distraction, and dismission, are you going to conjure up now? What is it that you are really talking about when you say 'real issues'? Is it 'cost shifting'--or is it 'only those that pay receive the product'? Is the 'free market'--or is it something else more in line with what corporate-government collusion it is that we really have? And, if it is the latter, what are you really coming in here to claim something to do about such a 'free market'--and something against 'government involvement'? After all, I have already shown the posts you did make early on in this thread that says the words 'free market'--and implying you being against 'government intervention'. What are you really about now? Does claims against 'cost shifting' actually address whether or not someone should 'receive a product that they didn't pay for'? Or, are you really all about making no sense--and distracting, distorting, and dismissing, as much as you possibly can? Like, as I've said, the lying shill that you are....

The real fact of the matter is that a corporate-controlled 'market' is no more 'freer' than you claim against a 'government-controlled market'. And, a 'choice between insurance companies' doesn't really address, nor negate, that point....especially if you are to claim any form of 'free market' in such a 'choice'.....

And, you can be as 'tired of it' as you want, that neither addresses, nor dismisses, the points that I've made...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sorry.... Did you say somthing... All I see is garbage and question marks.

You have what I said, Address it or talk to yourself

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

What are you going on about if you are now saying that your position isn't about 'free markets'? What 'market' are you claiming to be 'for' now? It's a simple question that could deserve an honest answer--but I don't think that you have that ability in your repertoire--honest responses aren't in your 'play book'....but, you could prove me wrong and answer a question outright for a change.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

What are you going on about if you are now saying that your position isn't about 'free markets'? What 'market' are you claiming to be 'for' now? It's a simple question that could deserve an honest answer--but I don't think that you have that ability in your repertoire--honest responses aren't in your 'play book'....but, you could prove me wrong and answer a question outright for a change.....

Frankly I doubt you have seen an honest comment come from your keyboard.

You tell me, You saw my plan for Healthcare system. Does it represent to ridiculous notion of somolia type "Free Market". Or does it represent a "freer market" by removing or midigating some of the negitive effects of Government intrusion.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

'Freer market'? By whose defintion and standards, Capital? Yours? As dismissing, distracting, and distorting, as you are?

The real fact of the matter is that a corporate-controlled 'market' is no more 'freer' than you claim against a 'government-controlled market'. And, a 'choice between insurance companies' doesn't really address, nor negate, that point....especially if you are to claim any form of 'free market' in such a 'choice'.....

And, what do you mean 'negative effects of Government intrusion'? Is that the same thing as 'cost shifting'? Or, are you inserting yet another misrepresentation and misnomer with respect to how this 'market' really works once again.....If you mean 'cost shifting', does that, in any way, deal with how some get medicine at no cost to them while others have to pay twice into the system (once as taxpayers and, then, as consumers)--even if 'government' is involved to, in any way, pay some costs?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

'Freer market'? By whose defintion and standards, Capital? Yours? As dismissing, distracting, and distorting, as you are?

When a Person says "My Plan" Such a stupid question shouldn't need to be asked. But there you are asking it.

And, what do you mean 'negative effects of Government intrusion'? Is that the same thing as 'cost shifting'?

I have posted it 100 times... Answer your own question.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Then, 'your plan' can say anything, can't it, Capital? Or, in fhis case with respect to the real issues involving the application of medical care, nothing. But, it does extrapolate on a lot of issues that mouth something called 'free market' against something it now deems is 'government intrusion' without once having this 'plan' address how the application of medical care in America really works. Even when you claim that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona 'hasn't had its costs covered by government', nothing in your 'plan' neither addresses how 'the plan' is to have government cover such costs--or even the insurance programs associated with Medicare doing so (when such insurance programs only cover the 20% of the Medicare allowable charge that Medicare covers 80% of). Does even your 'EMTALA covered by Medicaid' do it any better than 'the Mayo Clinic in Arizona being covered by Medicare'? And, how is any of this 'government intrusion' getting around now your 'freer market' mantra?

Quote Capital:

Answer your own question.

I did:

Or, are you inserting yet another misrepresentation and misnomer with respect to how this 'market' really works once again.....If you mean 'cost shifting', does that, in any way, deal with how some get medicine at no cost to them while others have to pay twice into the system (once as taxpayers and, then, as consumers)--even if 'government' is involved to, in any way, pay some costs?

Did you address any of that? Or, are you claiming that's not a 'real issue' in the application of American medicine as it stands today? And, will continue to stand with Obamacare...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Then, 'your plan' can say anything, can't it, Capital?

I am moved by your intellectual brilliance. But No, It cant say anything, It can only say what I want it to say.

Or, in fhis case with respect to the real issues involving the application of medical care, nothing.

You mean the fake issue you made up so you wouldn't have to deal with the issue I brought up. Nothing in my plan changes application of medical care.

Even when you claim that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona 'hasn't had its costs covered by government', nothing in your 'plan' neither addresses how 'the plan' is to have government cover such costs

Then you DIDN'T read the plan since it explicitly addresses it.

And, how is any of this 'government intrusion' getting around now your 'freer market' mantra?

How you read the plan dipshit..

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

Again, rather vacuous comments coming from someone who came in here saying something about 'free markets', came in here saying something about 'government intervention or, now, intrusion', claims to have some 'plan' that neither qualifies, nor removes, such government intrusions--except then to add something to do with 'cost shifting'--and, then, in what little Capital has left to say, only ends such a 'plan' with yet again direct attacks on my character and knowledge.

And, there is actually anyone left here in thomland that believes Capital's garbage? Believes that Capital has any real message to say about what a 'free market'--or even a 'freer market'--is? Believes that Capital is really wanting to remove government involvement and intrusions--especially as long as it serves the profit interests of corporations that government colludes with to have government cover most of what is covered for the most expensive patients? And, then, when the whole thing falls like a house of cards because of how much of the economy this corporate-government collusion could suck out with Obamacare (very similar to the home mortgage debacle), have the pat excuse that 'government did it'. Capital is, and by design is intended to be, a lying shill for 'the industry'.....here to distort, distract, dismiss, all along to disguise Capital's real purpose--can the excuse for the industry before it is needed....acting like Capital is 'against Obamacare' when Capital does nothing to address the real issues that Obamacare supports--government subsidizing the most costlly as corporations reaping the profits off the rest.....that is the only way that CEO's in this 'industry' can even appear to have a 'medicine for all' application and, still, rake in millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars for themselves....

And, some still think that this Supreme Court is really considering this issue 'constitutionally'? Or, just doing its part in the dog and pony show as the distraction that it is......for the little people, the taxpaying consumers....

Should medicine be offered to all--or only offered to those that can pay the price? That question is the real foundation of this argument--and its resultant applications. But, it's too profitable to do as my mother used to say by 'pitting the two halves against the middle'....with 'the middle' being the taxpaying consumer responsible for all of it.....and, then, keep lying about how it operates.....crediting profitizing corporations, blaming subsidizing governments....as 'the industry' gears up its 'corporatization of medical practice' just in time for Obamacare.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Again, rather vacuous comments coming from someone who came in here saying something about 'free markets',

Just and that to the heaping pile of your wrong assumptions. Since I came here to discuss the constituionality of PPACA.

And, there is actually anyone left here in thomland that believes Capital's garbage?

Appeal to concensus. As if fallacies will help you.

And, some still think that this Supreme Court is really considering this issue 'constitutionally'?

Then there are people like you...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Appeal to concensus. As if fallacies will help you.

I don't think that I am appealing to concensus like a popularity contest, Capital. You know how much I don't give a shit about that. However, I do think that I am appealing to the evidence of just how much you skirt around the issue. You embellish the claims of privileged for-profit medicine as being the answer to American health care. Yet, you do so beyond any realistic assertion of its supposed benefits because you never actually explain how it's going to work as well as you claim (especially on its own) and, because, then, you turn around and offer your own 'plan' that includes the very government involvement with its 'anti-free market' subsidies that you say are the problem to begin with. Neat excuses for the industry to abuse government subsidizing to embellish its own profit potential (again, by not having to pay for the most expensive patients--that's 'government's role' even in your 'plan')--and, then, when the set-up doesn't work as great as you propose, you already blame government for it (even as your own plan continues to use government in it).

But, that's not because you have in any way proven your own premise of how great the privileged for-profit medical industry is because you aren't really testing that in any way--you are 'leaving things as they are' with government subsidizing the most expensive patients as corporations can profit more on the others just like they are now (and will do so moreover with Obamacare). So, with that, I think that any one could conclude that you aren't here to show how well the privileged for-profit medical service would do for the public on its own as much as offering the excuses and scapegoating for that very industry when their profits along with the required government subsidies to support it increase under Obamacare to, in essence, suck the economy dry out of as much as it can for those profits and out of any similar sustainable medical application that can even have a semblance to being 'medicine for all'--as your continued use of EMTALA implies (that, of course, your privileged for-profit medical service doesn't pay for).

You are a lying shill for the industry.....set here to make excuses for its (I am sure) predicted downfall and shun the profit industry's part in that as you embellish government's part.....claiming to realize that Obamacare 'was unconstitutional all along' as you know that Obamacare will be a boon for the industry....for a while....just exactly in the same fashion as the home mortgage fiasco.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Any chance you could just pick one thread to converse in that would be great.

Quick question.

Would you agree that the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Restricted the Health insurance Market and made Health insurance More expensive?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

The free market has no interest in providing medical insurance to those who will use it for anything other than cheap services and who can't pay their inflated premium. This is one of those instances where the general welfare clause needs to kick in. Also, if it was truly free market, there would be no deduction for insurance by businesses that individuals don't get and employees would receive 1099's and pay taxes on their employers contributions.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm
Quote Capital:

Would you agree that the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Restricted the Health insurance Market and made Health insurance More expensive?

Well, the problem with 'competing insurance companies' is that there is no 'competing market' in the usual market sense in medicine anyway--especially if there is access to universal care (as an EMTALA law) at all.

What a typical 'competing market' would do is offer better widgets for less money than their competitors in an effort to get a bigger market share, right, Capital? But, the problem with that market analogy is that, despite your bullshit that medicine is just another 'product', medicine is not just another 'product'. When someone buys a widget, it is usually because they want a widget--and don't really need it in any real life-and-death sense. When someone buys medical care, it's usually because they need it--and usually don't 'want it' in a 'consumer driven' sense (a totally different 'market incentive' that can be abused by those in position to do so--such as insurance companies--especially when it comes to contracts that include 'maximum benefits' as well as 'what is covered at all'--all being able to be manipulated by the insurance company to the unwary consumer as if 'each policy were the same' in comparing their costs when, really, they may be totally different--and still not cover all the possibilities requiring medical care, anyway--something that would be obvious if there wasn't some 'safety net' or 'EMTALA law' stated that they can 'get the product' even if they haven't 'purchased it' in that fashion--even with insurance coverage). And, 'the industry' realizes this or they wouldn't have lying shills like yourself out here claiming to be for for-profit medicine and no medical right to care but, still offering those 'safety nets' and EMTALA laws covered by government, anyway. The very point of there being 'safety nets' and EMTALA laws which restrict no body's access to medical care is that makes it a 'universal access'--and covers up for the insurance company's failed policies in the meantime (my, if you had a problem and you didn't have the money nor the insurance coverage AND you were refused care accordingly because, after all, this is a privileged for-profit service, that wouldn't look good on 'the system' or 'the industry', now, would it, Capital? Insurance companies ought to be thanking govenment for those 'safety nets'--not blaming them for it like lying shills like you do). And, as a 'universal market', there is no where for 'competing insurance companies' to 'expand out'. How are they going to do that? By 'offering more for less'? How can they do that if everyone, in one way or the other, is offered the same thing--access to medical care--without the insurance policy?

So, with that in mind, what 'competing insurance companies' really do is exactly what lovecraft is saying--they 'compete' with each other by getting the least expensive patients for themselves--and, then, pass off the most expensive patients to something else. What do you think 'pre-existing conditions' is all about, Capital? It's not about the insurance company taking in those patients for less, is it? No, they cost too much......in fact, 'pre-existing conditions' patients without a corporate job based insurance policy probably won't be able to afford an insurance policy on their own (no matter how many insurance companies are 'competing')--and, will be passed to that 'no cost covering piece of shit' government subsidizing program, won't it, Capital? Even with Obamacare....

Now, if you really have to have insurance companies in this mix because politicians love their perks, I think there is a way that would be more equitable to the taxpaying consumer than what has been proposed--and it would work better if there were 'competing insurance companies' just like a real 'free market'. The idea was presented, believe it or not, by the (libertarian) comedian Penn Jullette on the Glen Beck show I saw once--and, if you are sawdust, you've already heard it before. Have government cover everyone's 'catastrophe care' (those high end expensive treatments like kidney dialysis, cancer treatments, major trauma, burn, and heart treatments, that government already covers most of what is paid for that type of care because most insurance policies don't carry that kind of 'maximum benefit' coverage without costing out the ass) and, then, have insurance companies compete for the coverage up to the 'catastrophe care' coverage. One, everyone will know what they are getting and can truly compare policies and prices. Two, it's still not a mandated service and others still could opt not to pay any insurance--but, then, they will be responsible for the payments to the 'catastrophe cap'--but, that could be something like a small house or expensive car loan if required depending upon what the 'catastrophe cap' were. And, the option for some to not buy insurance may even drive the price of insurance down even more since, once again, all those insurance companies will be competing for exactly the same market--the 'coverage to the catastrophe cap' market.

And, government paying for everyone's 'catastrophe cap' could get government out of the game of 'playing favorites'--that corporations (and certain people) love to take advantages with. How could that be paid for? Well, I guess you could have a sort of Obamacare like option--have it either paid by taxing the 'coverage to the catastrophe cap' policies or, if one doesn't get a policy like that, a direct tax added on their income (perhaps even make that tax a little higher to have the person enticed to purchase a policy--and considering that, without insurance coverage, that person might default on their bills to the catastrophe cap that some other fund may have to subsidize).

Sound OK to you, Capital? Otherwise, again if insurance companies have to be involved, work it like Thom Hartmann says Switzerland does, have it paid for by competing insurance programs--but require all those insurance programs to be NOT FOR PROFIT. Like Thom says health insurance companies used to be here in the U.S.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Couldn't answer a simple two sentence question.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 3:51 pm

I answered your question, Capital. By bringing up the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, you imply that competing insurance companies on the 'open market' would, by the mysterious forces of the 'free market' with 'open competition', naturally bring insurance company policy prices down and, as you say, 'cover more for less'. That might work for Wal-Mart products but I sincerely do NOT believe that it will do so for the so-called 'product' of medical care--nor its financial offshoot 'product', health insurance policies--for the reasons that I bring up in post #421. One, medical care isn't 'wanted' like a consumer-driven product--in many cases when it happens, it's needed. Two, insurance policy options prey on that incentive not by offering 'more for less' but, hidden in the small print of each contract limiting maximum benefits and covered treatments, by offering 'less for more'. Three, with even lying shills like yourself (that claim that medicine is a privileged for-profit 'product') continuing to add in 'safety net' and 'EMTALA law' options (not to mention the right to malpractice lawsuits whether you have paid anything or nothing--what other 'product' can you do that with?), medical access is a universal right--at least when you have a life or limb threatening, or pregnant and active labor presenting, ailment to a Medicare-participating hospital which, since the most hospitalized part of the population is Medicare patients, is most hospitals (even still your Mayo Clinic in Arizona despite what supposed 'costs it lost').

And, with such universal accessibility, I'm not sure how any of the competing insurance companies can really 'expand their markets', anyway....other than to claim they can--and claim how such 'competition' will have all those competing insurance companies just welcoming in all those 'pre-existing conditions' patients to 'pay more for less' and, of course, not try to pass them off to some other entity as being 'too expensive'--all claims by lying shills such as yourself that this, in any way, represents a 'free and open market' that 'competition' will 'efficiently streamline'--bullshit....in a universal access market, the real competition is to bring in the least expensive patients for more profits--and get rid of the most expensive patients to something else--with that working because this whole 'free and open market' is based on the collusion between government and corporations (that includes these universal access 'safety nets' and 'EMTALA laws') where government subsidizes the most expensive patients as corporations can profitably capitalize off the rest and as the taxpaying consumer is responsible for covering for all of it.....as the Mayo Clinic in Arizona can complain about Medicare not covering for hundreds of millions of dollars in costs and as some CEO's in this 'industry' can still rake in millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars for themselves....still all with a universal access requirement and, at the same time, some lying shills like Capital coming in stating that medicine is not a right but a privileged for-profit 'product'....all at the taxpaying consumers' expense.....

But, in efforts to at least have something like a productive conversation with you, Capital--that is, if you are here to even have productive conversations as part of your lying shill arrangements--I did put forth two examples of 'competing insurance company options' that might actually work. Admit the universal access part and have government cover it as a 'catastrophe cap'--and, then, have the insurance companies compete for coverage up to the 'catastrophe cap'--and I thought that I explained to you why that was a fairer option IF insurance companies have to stay involved. Or, do as Hartmann says Switzerland does, have the competing insurance companies NOT BE FOR PROFIT. But, neither one of those options is as likely to keep those CEO's raking in those millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars for themselves, is it, Capital?

Now, who's the lying shill here? Capital. Who can't even comment on my presentation that answered his McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 question....

Are you ready to say 'FUCK YOU!', again, Capital?....8^).....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And, I might add that if Capital is actually telling the truth in 'not' being for Obamacare (you know, 'constitutionality' and all), we, again, may be in agreement--but probably for different reasons. I see the present Obamacare option as another affront for the burgeoning medical-industrial complex right in line with its mliitary-industrial counterpart. I suspect that the lying shill Capital is in here to say that Capital is 'against' it as an excuse for that very medical-industrial complex once that empire sucks so much out of the economy that it cannot be responsibly sustained.....canning the excuse that 'government did it' all along (just like what the financial industry did with the home mortgage debacle).....and, to be sure, in its present collusion with healthcare-related corporations, government, indeed, did its part....but not for the taxpaying consumers' benefit....as the real voters that have placed those government 'representatives' there....taxpaying consumers and voters that are being played as fools by the corporate-government colluders and such lying shills like Capital....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The nature of a free market means that it can never support universal access because it will never be profitable. Serving the poor will always be a money loser and for profit companies will never have any interest unless govt subsidizes the care and gives them a profit. Medical insurance for all is one of those general welfare situations where govt is needed in some way to assist those at the lower end of the economic scale. And I don't mean putting money in for profit companies pockets.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system