Supreme Court Obamacare Case -- Pros and Cons

Like Crashfrog says, is there really a difference? Is there precedent for these types of penalties? For instance, are banks charged a fee for not paying FDIC dues (do they even pay dues for this insurance?)?Overall, it is still insane that they had to call this a penalty instead of a tax in order to get it by Blue Dog Democrats. I guess politics really is about perception instead of reality.

Hi Taq,Politician lawyer types like to use language to argue points either way. There is a precedent for the mandate:Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

quote:

---

In July of 1798, Congress passed — and President John Adams signed - An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen. The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

​

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

​

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

​

... it created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government to treat injured and ailing privately employed sailors. This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

---

So there was a penalty if you didn't pay: you couldn't work as a sailor.Enjoy.

yes, but why is healthcare so expensive?I think it is due to insurance costs and liability costs, not because the procedure or the doctor's time is all that valuable or costly.I think forcing you to buy something from a private company borders on supporting a monopoly, something that will be based on profits, instead of patient care, driving up the cost, and driving down the quality.

Because we overpay doctors, for the most part. We pay doctors 50% more than any other country.Insurance billing has something to do with it, but "liability costs" isn't part of it; malpractice coverage is maybe 1% of health care costs. If even that. The ACA regulates how much of insurance company revenues can be taken out as profit, so clearly this is wrong.These are real and complex issues, AE, and you should consider taking a little more effort to do research beyond your usual standard of "I'll just make it up."

Part of it is the cost of the doctor. They spend a lot of money, time and effort to become doctors, and presumably, you don't even want the ones that put all that effort in and came out last in their class, you want the best of the best. That's going to cost you.But there is also the cost of the procedures: the machinery being used (CAT scans, PET scans, X-Rays), the labs being run (techs, equipment, materials), any time spent in the hospital (food, heat, electricity, construction, expansion, etc).But the proftability of the insurance companies is also a large part of the cost. That's why I favor a public option, the profit motive is removed, and the risk of anyone being uninsured goes away almost completely. Any remaining risk is spread across the entire population, diluting it quite a bit. Since there are competing insurance companies, there is no monopoly, and under conventional economic wisdom, the competition should keep costs down (it doesn't but oh well). But yeah, I support a public option, which removes much of the concerns of the second half of your quote above.

I aint got time for all that, im good, thanks for your concern though.how did people afford the doctor before health insurance?Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

Before 1935, medicine didn't really do all that much, so people didn't need it as badly. It's really only been in the last 30 years that medical science has been able to expensively extend the lives of people with serious ailments. Also it's only been in the last 30 years that a doctor's salary has put you in the 1%.

is it really that expensive to write scripts all day long?

If that was all doctors did, we could get rid of them right now.

No, it's not, which is why other countries have used price controls and monopsony power to reduce the costs of medical care.

Isn't the cost of medication also a large contributing factor? Specifically, my understanding is that countries with national single-payer healthcare use the purchasing power inherent in a virtual monopoly (private insurance usually still exists as additional coverage, but their purchasing power pales in comparison) to bargain for reduced bulk-pricing on medication.

The same way they do today if they coudn't afford healthcare. They didn't go to the doctor.

Of course it's based on profit. Looking at the average American's size increase in the past 40 years, why wouldn't someone make money off of an increasingly unhealthy population?There's a market that is continuing to be unhealthier year after year. Why wouldn't doctors and drug makers not benefit from that?- Oni

Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - CBS News

quote:

---

Supreme Court majority skeptical on health care law

​

In the fight over President Obama's health care law, this was the main event. On Tuesday, the nine justices of the Supreme Court heard arguments on the part of the law that requires all Americans to have health insurance or pay a fine. It's called the individual mandate. The Obama administration said that the mandate will make sure everyone has health care while keeping insurance affordable. Opponents say it's a dangerous new power for the government by forcing citizens to buy a product.

---

Yet they did just that in 1798 ... ... when many of the founding fathers were still walking talking and participating in the US Government. So there is no question about precedent OR what the founding fathers would think.

quote:

---

All four of the court's liberal justices defended the law. In one exchange, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tossed a friendly question to the administration's top lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

​

"I thought a major, major point of your argument was that the people who don't participate in this market are making it much more expensive for the people who do," she said.

---

And that a patchwork system of states is not sufficient to fairly distribute the costs of our corporation owned healthcare.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : qs layer

Has this point been brought up yet do you know?Jon