Europe Is Baffled by the U.S. Supreme Court

[Mxylplyx]

In theory. Not in practice. There are still people without health insurance under the current mixed system.

No, not in practice, because the government doesn't let pure free market healthcare exist for good reason. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to surmise what pure free market healthcare would be like. The government constructs a patchwork of regulations and safety nets that catch the millions of people that fall through the cracks created by the quasi free market delivery system.

 

[QuantumPion]

Regulations on healthcare that force a free market system to abandon many of it's free market principles keep our healthcare network from being morally repugnant. If you want to imagine a pure free market health system, just think auto insurance, and substitute your car for your body.

What does your car insurance company do if you get in a wreck? Rates go up.

What does your car insurance company do if you get in another wreck? Rates go up again

What does your car insurance company do if you get in 5 more wrecks? They drop you

Now imagine getting sick is the same as getting in a wreck.

You want to live in that world? Free market principles have no moral place when it comes to determining healthcare accessibility.

I would like to live in that world, yes. This wouldn't be an issue if the price of health care services wasn't so out of whack due to government interference in the market place to begin with. You can't fubar the market with government interference, and then when it fails, blame capitalism and demand more government interference.

Well I mean, you can do that. And the Democrats in fact DO do that. But my point is, its irrational and counter-production and only leads to worse service for everyone in the end.

 

[Infohawk]

No, not in practice, because the government doesn't let pure free market healthcare exist for good reason. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to surmise what pure free market healthcare would be like. The government constructs a patchwork of regulations and safety nets that catch the millions of people that fall through the cracks created by the quasi free market delivery system.

I don't get it, are you really defending the current system? I don't think anyone likes it.

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider View Post
We aren't promised life and happiness and Europe can mind it's own business.

I guess the Declaration of Independence shows nothing about the intentions of the founding fathers:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Having a 'right to life' is different IMO then suggesting the govt must guarantee you life. Since you have a right to life, it means the govt, among other things/entities, cannot take it away from you without considerable cause.

We take away other rights from time-to-time for (good) cause. E.g., voting and right to bear arms.

We take away liberty, and one could argue the pursuit of happiness, from those so mentally ill they need to be committed against their will.

But I digress.

If you believe that the govt guarantees us life, meaning it should guarantee us HC, where do you stop?

It can be argued things like food, shelter and clothing are equally, if not more so, necessary for life. Shall the govt also guarantee us these too?

I believe those who argue for such guarantees fail to see the obvious conundrum their proposed situation presents: The mechanism to achieve such guarantees necessarily requires a substantial diminishment of another key right: The Right to Liberty.

You would force people to forgo Liberty in the pursuit of additional, and some would argue unnecessary, governmental guarantees for Life.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Europe Is Baffled by the U.S. Supreme Court

Why wouldn't they be?

Heck, many people here are rather clueless about the Constitution. One could hardly expect Europeans be familiar with it and understand it.

Fern

 

[a777pilot]

Why wouldn't they be?

Heck, many people here are rather clueless about the Constitution. One could hardly expect Europeans be familiar with it and understand it.

Fern

Sad but good point.

 

[Fern]

A couple thoughts:
-snip-

2) As for the particular case of this health care law, here's what I don't get: If the federal government were to raise the income tax across the board 2% (which they are allowed to do) and offer a tax deduction of 2% for healthcare coverage, no one would have a constitutional objection. We have these kinds of deductions all the time for things like college tuition, mortgage payments, insulating your house, etc. Do these constitute an illegal individual mandate? What is the difference between such a tax deduction system and a flat-out mandate, other than simplicity?

I'm kind of intrigued by your question, but do not understand it sufficiently. Pls explain furher.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

European liberty is not the same as American liberty. European liberty is set in the fact that liberties were things the kings granted the peasants. American liberty is an evolution of such and has a lot more to do with individualism and the fact that we are EQUALS, no one grants us shit.

 

[BoberFett]

No, not in practice, because the government doesn't let pure free market healthcare exist for good reason. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to surmise what pure free market healthcare would be like. The government constructs a patchwork of regulations and safety nets that catch the millions of people that fall through the cracks created by the quasi free market delivery system.

Yeah, that horrible free market system where doctors used to make house calls and didn't charge a years wages for a simple procedure... How awful...

 

[bfdd]

Yeah, that horrible free system where doctors used to make house calls and didn't charge a years wages for a simlpe procedure... How awful...

Or the bullshit monopoly on education it has created that pimps "give us more money for more education or you'll be a failure your entire life" and has people wasting billions on bullshit degrees in fields they'll never work in.

 

[hal2kilo]

You can have my Freedom Fries when you pry them from my cold dead hands

 

[Moonbeam]

Fern: Having a 'right to life' is different IMO then suggesting the govt must guarantee you life. Since you have a right to life, it means the govt, among other things/entities, cannot take it away from you without considerable cause.

M: Right, having a right to life is a theoretical thing. The government was never meant to do anything to insure it. You get to live if you don't commit a capital offense or get killed by a defective product.

F: We take away other rights from time-to-time for (good) cause. E.g., voting and right to bear arms.

We take away liberty, and one could argue the pursuit of happiness, from those so mentally ill they need to be committed against their will.

M: I guess we make exceptions to the rule when some greater principle comes into play like that you can't be free if being free to you deprives others or their own liberty or when you are too incompetent to live properly.

F: But I digress.

M: I will use these points so you didn't digress in my opinion.

F: If you believe that the govt guarantees us life, meaning it should guarantee us HC, where do you stop?

M: I am not sure yet, but let's do the health care and then decide.

F: It can be argued things like food, shelter and clothing are equally, if not more so, necessary for life. Shall the govt also guarantee us these too?

M: Somebody has doubtlessly mentioned food stamps and we supply prison garb too.

F: I believe those who argue for such guarantees fail to see the obvious conundrum their proposed situation presents: The mechanism to achieve such guarantees necessarily requires a substantial diminishment of another key right: The Right to Liberty.

M: Yes but you already established that we do that all the time when, as I said, one great principle is superseded by another. You will note that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness have a natural order of declining priority, the first required for the second and the second for the third.

F: You would force people to forgo Liberty in the pursuit of additional, and some would argue unnecessary, governmental guarantees for Life.

M: Indeed I would. Our first priority isn't liberty but life and not just yours or mine but the life of every citizen. Sadly the ego wants to distort what our better natures require. Some of us focus more on the pursuit of our own happiness over the lives of others.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Our first priority isn't liberty but life and not just yours or mine but the life of every citizen.

Odd position given that so many have willingly sacrificed their own lives in the pursuit of Liberty for themselves or even others.

Some of us focus more on the pursuit of our own happiness over the lives of others.

Yes, whether or not one approves, they do have the Liberty to do so.

Fern

 

[Ninjahedge]

Yeah, that horrible free market system where doctors used to make house calls and didn't charge a years wages for a simple procedure... How awful...

Bob, that is not how it worked.

That is when doctors actually gave a crap about their patients as a norm, not as a heroic fantasy.

Free market does not work very well when your life is in the balance.

So tell me, how much is YOUR health worth Bob? (Rhetorical, but I hope you understand my point...)

 

[a777pilot]

Bob, that is not how it worked.

That is when doctors actually gave a crap about their patients as a norm, not as a heroic fantasy.

Free market does not work very well when your life is in the balance.

So tell me, how much is YOUR health worth Bob? (Rhetorical, but I hope you understand my point...)

Free market does not work very well when your life is in the balance.

That is when the free market works the best.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Odd position given that so many have willingly sacrificed their own lives in the pursuit of Liberty for themselves or even others.



Yes, whether or not one approves, they do have the Liberty to do so.

Fern

Totally agree. Life is meaningless without liberty which is why as you've stated we have had hundreds of thousands if not millions of people die for liberty itself in this nation rather then to just exist like a drone/slave.

 

[WelshBloke]

Lol at people in this thread getting butthurt because a foreigner criticised something about their country.

 

[WelshBloke]

How many US states have you been to? There is quite a different healthcare need between Florida and Alaska, for example - from climate alone. The super sparse population of Wyoming dictates needs that the very dense population of Rhode Island does not have. Some states have far older populations, some far younger. On and on.

Each state should setup their own public healthcare system for their state. This would accomplish many things:

1. Get universal coverage to the people of the state.
2. The different systems can learn from each other.
3. Each system can be tailored to the specific needs and wants of the state.
4. State government is easy to hold accountable, Fed Gov is nearly impossible to hold accountable.
5. It is constitutional (barring a state's constitution saying something else, of course).

Do you only get treatment in the state you live in or can you shop around?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That is when doctors actually gave a crap about their patients as a norm, not as a heroic fantasy.

So you don't think doctors care about their patients in general? There are a lot of reasons to go to med school, and money generally isn't one of them.

 

[bfdd]

Bob, that is not how it worked.

That is when doctors actually gave a crap about their patients as a norm, not as a heroic fantasy.

Free market does not work very well when your life is in the balance.

So tell me, how much is YOUR health worth Bob? (Rhetorical, but I hope you understand my point...)

I'd say my health is around 200,000 dollars worth. Anything more and it'd probably be a waste of resources to spend on me. This also depends on the degree injury and whether or not I could get back to work. If it was career ending, as in never working again, I'd put it at probably a little less than half that.

Mind you this is in over inflated medical insurance bill dollars, not in actual cost dollars. lol @ anyone who thinks you pay the same if you're paying in cash. Hospitals near me are at minimum like 75% cheaper if you pay in cash than use insurance per procedure.

 

[Moonbeam]

Fern: Odd position given that so many have willingly sacrificed their own lives in the pursuit of Liberty for themselves or even others.

M: Remember the draft?

F: Yes, whether or not one approves, they do have the Liberty to do so.

M: Unless the state says otherwise based on priority of rights.

 

[Fern]

Do you only get treatment in the state you live in or can you shop around?

Different states have different rule. You may get different answers from people, and they all may be correct because they live in different states.

There is nothing preventing people from seeking medical treatment in a different state. In fact, it's quite common for the more serious medical conditions. There are certain hospitals specializing in certain treatments (e.g., cancer). Most of their patients are from out-of-state.

HI can be a little more tricky. HI companies are licensed by the state. States have rules that HI must comply with to be licensed. Many of these rules are for the protection of the customer. E.g., the HI company may have to prove it is sufficiently strong (financially) so as to ensure paying customers won't be ripped off. (Pay for your coverage then the HI company goes broke leaving you uninsured.)

The HI companies must also agree to a state govt designed resolution process in case there is a dispute between the HI company and a customer. E.g., they don't want to pay for a procedure you (or your physician) believes is necessary.

Some years ago I spoke with my state govt about this (buying HI insurance from a company in another state not doing business here). They said it was legal for me to buy from that company. However, in the event there was a dispute they could not help me because that company wasn't located in my state and thus they no authority over them.

Fern

 

[teddyv]

Pursuit of happiness. You are not guaranteed happiness. You are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. The right to work your ass off to have, not the right just to have.

Big difference.

 

[Matthiasa]

You think that Obamacare is going to be the difference between life and death for me? Why would you think that ?

I am saying it means that for some people. To have to chose between indebting their family until basically forever, or dying. Sometimes people simply can't get insurance even if they had made enough for that to normally not be the case.

To punish someone simply because they were born to genetically disadvantaged family is not the right thing to do.
Before it, if I didn't happen to find a job that provided insurance no matter how much I made there would have been no way for me to get any coverage ever.
Sometimes it is really as simple as that.

Now I won't say most of the law isn't trash, because that's obviously isn't the case but certian parts of it are needed in the name of equality.

But I suppose you were born to a family that wasn't genetically disadvantaged so none of that really bothers you. Let them die and all right?

 

[Carmen813]

nah, they use different statistical methods in measuring their health care which makes it seem better than it really is. typical tactic of liberals in power - you have to lie and tell everyone everything is OK otherwise the plebs will start getting antsy.

People who have power lying is not a liberal tendency. It's a tendency of people with power.