Health Care Law Massacred in Supreme Court

[nrubenstein]

So, then how does giving them more power and money to execute those decisions = a better outcome in your mind?

*shrug* The only way it really works is if you set up an independent commission with real authority. Of course, your people decided that that would lead to "death panels" and euthanasia for grandma. Even without, it'd still be better than the current approach.

[nrubenstein]

If non-profit providers are better performing, then the market (decision makers who have the choice like HR) should buy from these organizations and motivate poor-performing yet profiting companies to do better. Going to crap companies and accepting crap gives them no incentive to improve.

My point was that free market != have to buy from for-profit corporations. I don't bank with for-profit corporations to their benefit, but it's the free market that keeps rates competitive and that I enjoy at my credit unions.

Simply forcing or telling people to be insured won't make healthcare companies better, besides having more potential customers that are more desperate.

Here is the problem: Most people have no choice whatsoever about what health plan they use. They take whatever the hell their employer gives them.

[z31maniac]

*shrug* The only way it really works is if you set up an independent commission with real authority. Of course, your people decided that that would lead to "death panels" and euthanasia for grandma. Even without, it'd still be better than the current approach.

If you read my posts and think I'm an R, it shows how little you pay attention to anything.

But basically what you're saying is, you'd like to put people in charge, with whom the voters have no recourse?

Sounds like a GREAT idea.

[jrobie79]

no ones forcing them to keep that job though....employment isnt owed to anyone, if they don't like the terms of their employment they dont have to take it....once again the market will force companies with shitty terms to change, or perish

[nrubenstein]

If you read my posts and think I'm an R, it shows how little you pay attention to anything.

But basically what you're saying is, you'd like to put people in charge, with whom the voters have no recourse?

Sounds like a GREAT idea.

Voters have virtually zero real recourse against anybody right now anyway.

[mrsleeve]

this thread makes my head hurt


Choices are made by citizens, mandates are made for subjects

[nrubenstein]

no ones forcing them to keep that job though....employment isnt owed to anyone, if they don't like the terms of their employment they dont have to take it....once again the market will force companies with shitty terms to change, or perish

This is just not true for a lot of people.

[rwh11385]

Here is the problem: Most people have no choice whatsoever about what health plan they use. They take whatever the hell their employer gives them.

55% of Americans are insured through employer plans. The 10% through direct might not be as great, but can directly influence with their choices.

As I mentioned, HR can make the call and companies benefits do matter to employees. I take note of who the coverage is with and has weighed in decisions before. It's not as free-market as everyone buying it directly, but it isn't simply meaningless.

But your identification of the problem is that much of the health care business is not done via true free-market interaction between the end user and the provider. However, superior care and efficient processing can be competitive even if just the employer doing the choosing.

Competition does not necessarily have to mean vying for sales either, but rather the best business model and practices. Pushing a mandate on people to get health insurance won't make it magically cheaper, but innovation can make it cheaper and better. We ought to be focusing on research to bring forth solutions.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...medical-center
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...medical-center
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/...health-project

Condition: Doctors are generally too busy to instruct underinsured patients how to access programs that pay for prescription meds.
Cure: Community health organizations navigate those hurdles for the hospitals, via partnership.

Doing what we've always done will always get us where we've always got. (Now just with more oversight)

[z31maniac]

Voters have virtually zero real recourse against anybody right now anyway.

You can vote them out. Whether Rs and Ds are two sides of the same coin is a different matter.


Regardless, your state that gov't can't effectively run Medicare/Medicaid, we have no recourse against elected officials, so let's let the elected officials choose people who can be voted out, to force yet another system on us that they can't effectively manage.

[herbivor]

Ironically, a universal healthcare system , had it passed, is perfectly constitutional but when the democrats come up with the same mandate plan the republicans came up with in 1994, it crosses the line.

[jrobie79]

how is it constitutional?

[herbivor]

^because universal healthcare does not force anyone to buy a non-governmental product. But if you provide it for everyone and tax accordingly its no different than providing any other government service. And I don't consider myself a law expert but that's how I've heard it explained by experts as being constitutional.

[jrobie79]

right, but to do that you would need to amend the constitution to state that, there is no mention of healthcare in the constitution, same goes with marriage or education (waffleswaffleswaffles unconstitutional?)....the states on the other hand (massachusetts) can do it, and have.

[nrubenstein]

right, but to do that you would need to amend the constitution to state that, there is no mention of healthcare in the constitution, same goes with marriage or education (waffleswaffleswaffles unconstitutional?)....the states on the other hand (massachusetts) can do it, and have.

If the federal government provides the service, it's perfectly constitutional. You could also achieve it by withholding all federal funding for medical care unless states implement a program that conforms to federal requirements. (i.e. highway funding - most likely a couple of states would opt out on principle, but everyone else would get it. And the laggards would eventually turn around.)

[jrobie79]

the federal government has specific enumerated powers which grants what it can do...its not what it can't do, and providing health care is not one of those enumerated powers. Post roads is an enumerated power....so highways are constitutional. I could be wrong, but thats how it is written....and health care not being in there, gives states the right to decide based on the 10th amendment no?