3 Big Takeaways From Obamacare Decision
Why would you not be allowed to embed videos? See here for a brief how-to.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
I'm gonna go ahead and embed it here because it's good enough to deserve a spot here at the top of the new page where more people will see it.
Peter Schiff: The Supreme Court is wrong: ObamaCare is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Got it, thanks. It was understandably going berzerk when I tried other methods (using html).
I watched that Schiff video yesterday. He says the same thing over and over and over. Not that it isn't a decent point, but he really likes to hear himself talk.
I don't think he likes to hear himself at all. I think it's a combination of catharsis (as I was saying here), and him being used to having to repeat himself a number of times before people will actually get what he's saying (even though he has a knack for presenting things in the most understandable, layman way).
And while he did repeat a few things, that's certainly not the reason for the length of the video. I'd say maybe 5 minutes or so was repeat.
Looks like Chief Justice Roberts used precisely my rationale for upholding the individual mandate. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28715.aspx
A wonderful explanation of why the ruling is wrong (why it's a regulation of commerce and not a tax; why even if it was a tax, it would have to be considered a direct tax and not an indirect tax). Of course, since it is not truly a tax but a regulation of commerce and the court said Congress couldn't do this as a proper, Constitutional regulation of commerce, it should have been struck down. And if it were somehow a tax, it would certainly be a direct tax, which would require it to be apportioned to the population of the states. Since it is not, it would have to be struck down. I believe this is the guy that wrote The Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant. Anyway, very interesting podcast. It's approximately half an hour long.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Phi est aureum: A wonderful explanation of why the ruling is wrong (why it's a regulation of commerce and not a tax; why even if it was a tax, it would have to be considered a direct tax and not an indirect tax). Of course, since it is not truly a tax but a regulation of commerce and the court said Congress couldn't do this as a proper, Constitutional regulation of commerce, it should have been struck down. And if it were somehow a tax, it would certainly be a direct tax, which would require it to be apportioned to the population of the states. Since it is not, it would have to be struck down. I believe this is the guy that wrote The Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant. Anyway, very interesting podcast. It's approximately half an hour long.
The "Commerce Clause" has been perverted just as much, if not moreso, than the "Supremacy Clause." The Commerce Clause was intended to prevent a trade war among the states and to keep commerce regular. It does not mean Congress has the authority to regulate (CONTROL) private industries. Of course, that's heresy to mainstream understanding of government - thanks, liberal-progressives!
This is the argument I am hearing:
Right now everybody doesn't have health care, Uninsured Joe Blow is going to the emergency room basically being a freeloader, while the hospital absorbs all the cost and everybody indirectly pays for it through all the unpaid bills. That' s not right!
With Obamacare, all the people now that are never insured will now be forced to be insured, so we don't have to pay for the freeloaders.
Now everybody will be paying to the insurance companies and costs will go down!
Seriously, somebody refute this because I'd like to know more about it. Don't just tell me 'it's wrong', because I am going to remain ignorant of this until I am able to hear a better argument. And If I'm ignorant, thousands of others are too, and easily fall for slick stuff like this.
/Devil's Advocate.
Well, what evidence do these people have that there were all sorts of unpaid medical treatment actually going on? Unless they have actual reasoning or evidence, they're just asserting a belief.
Also, guess who required hospitals to provide ER care for free to people who couldn't afford it? That's right - the government.
Also, the Affordable Care Act stipulates that 1) Medicaid will be used to pay for medical treatment for people earning 133% of less of the "federal poverty level", and 2) people earning between 133% and 400% of the "federal poverty level" will receive some kind of subsidy for purchasing health insurance through a government-sponsored "health insurance exchange".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Cortes:Seriously, somebody refute this because I'd like to know more about it.
Cortes: Right now everybody doesn't have health care, Uninsured Joe Blow is going to the emergency room basically being a freeloader, while the hospital absorbs all the cost and everybody indirectly pays for it through all the unpaid bills. That' s not right! With Obamacare, all the people now that are never insured will now be forced to be insured, so we don't have to pay for the freeloaders. Now everybody will be paying to the insurance companies and costs will go down!
"Now everybody will be paying to the insurance companies and costs will go down!"
This argument ignores scarcity. Just because people are forced to pay for something does not mean more resources are available.
[One piece of nonsense I consider especially dangerous is] the notion that what we cannot afford in terms of medical care as 300 million Americans paying directly, we can somehow afford by sending the same money through the government, and paying for a government bureaucracy on top of all the other costs of medical care. — Thomas Sowell
Government mandates that hospitals must accept the ER patients. This is what gives rise to the "free riders." If they really wanted to address that, they would repeal the law or adjust it to give discretionary powers to the hospital so they could turn away someone with the sniffles, non-life threatening injuries for illegal aliens, whatever they want. With a tax payer, they're at least contributing something since they presumably pay federal taxes and will continue to do so if their life is saved. I also read an article that the "free riders" cost states and the federal government $140 billion. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the other stupid stuff in the federal budget.
As someone said, they don't care. They just want socialized medicine. This issue is a canard. The mandate alone just creates more malinvestment of capital in the economy.
I'm reading now that Roberts flipped his vote at some point and that he was originally going to join with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy to strike down the law in its entirety.
Yeah, it must have been such a rush for him, knowing he will go down in all the history books. This is what these fat-ego'd clowns have wet dreams of. They get to be movie stars.
In case you haven't seen, this has been making the rounds on facebook:
Finally, America is closer to joining the ranks of every other civilized nations healthcare system.
Mustang19, is that you?
See Page 2...
Which article talks about disproving the affordable cost premise I mentioned above?
[Sorry, I'm just being pragmatic here. Do you think the average Joe Blow has the attention span or will to wade through that entire reading list if you don't even tell him why he's wrong beforehand?]
So? Isn't that good?
1.) People don't have insurance because they can't afford it. 2.) Forcing everyone to buy insurance wont enable them to afford it. 3.) No problem was resolved.
So? Medicaid will take care of it! All the poor folk that can't afford the insurance won't pay the tax/fine/penalty/gulag sentence! Isn't that nice of government!
"The cost of healthcare should be distributed over everyone in order to lower the cost." This has been debunked so many times and in so many ways it's not even funny.
Where? (Specifics)
Also, wouldn't this mandate give the insurance companies more customers, and therefore incentive to lower costs?
The government will just make more doctors! [people seriously believe this].
When it comes down to it, 30/40 billion people cannot afford health care. Congress got together and discussed 'how can we make healthcare affordable for 30 million people'? Isn't that great of them?
Why don't we just make everybody in the pool get into the system? Then the insurance companies will have all these new customers! And when enough people have this healthcare, the costs will go down! Who cares about scarcity; the mandate will increase demand for better doctors!
Also, instead of everybody rushing to the emergency room, instead more people will just be getting preventative care instead of care when they're sick! We'd have LESS doctors, not more!
Problems solved, guys. Obamacare will work.
/Devil's Advocate
Cortes:Which article talks about disproving the affordable cost premise I mentioned above?
The majority of them mention the fallacy of bringing down costs, but I would try
"Alice in Health Care" — Part I, II, III, IV
"The 'Costs' of Medical Care" — Part I, II, III, IV
Understanding the Costs of Healthcare
Socialized Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics
Why is Medical Care so Expensive
Health Care for All!
'Bad Medicine' or Bad Economics?
for starters.
Sorry, I didn't realize you considered yourself an "average Joe Blow", and that you wouldn't take the time to read sources provided to you without being told what they say beforehand.
Also, the Affordable Care Act stipulates that 1) Medicaid will be used to pay for medical treatment for people earning 133% of less of the "federal poverty level", and 2) people earning between 133% and 400% of the "federal poverty level" will receive some kind of subsidy for purchasing health insurance through a government-sponsored "health insurance exchange". So? Isn't that good?
No, government subsidization and bureaucratization is never good.
You mean kind of like how the school systems are incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers?
Or like how the US Postal Service is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers?
Or like how the DMV is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers?
Or like how the police department is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers?
Or like how the government itself is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers?
When it comes down to it, 30/40 billion people cannot afford health care. Congress got together and discussed 'how can we make healthcare affordable for 30 million people'? Isn't that great of them? Why don't we just make everybody in the pool get into the system? Then the insurance companies will have all these new customers! And when enough people have this healthcare, the costs will go down! Who cares about scarcity; the mandate will increase demand for better doctors!
Since you don't seem to be willing to read or listen to any of the sources provided to you in this thread I'm just going to leave you with this simple thought. If you cannot be refused coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, and the "penalty" for not purchasing coverage is less expensive than the coverage itself, and the government has no way to really enforce the penalty anyway, why would anyone bother purchasing coverage before they get sick or injured? Why would anyone waste their money paying for something before they are going to use it?
And if no one will do that, where are all these healthy customers going to come from? The only people who will end up actually paying for coverage are those who are going to be taking payouts (i.e. receiving care that costs more than what they're paying into the pool).
If you can explain how that would work you'll be the savior of freeloaders.
Cortes:The government will just make more doctors! [people seriously believe this]. [...] Also, instead of everybody rushing to the emergency room, instead more people will just be getting preventative care instead of care when they're sick! We'd have LESS doctors, not more! Problems solved, guys. Obamacare will work.
If you're asking how you can get people who believe "government will create more doctors" while simultaneously believing "we'd have LESS doctors, not more", to accept reality, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm sure there's a psychiatry forum somewhere on the Internetz.
I think you misunderstood my post. I am taking the role of Joe Blow whom watches the newz and their soundbite arguments, in the context of the dialogue in this thread, who first made the argument. In response you post those articles ("See page 2"), which are great, but to Joe Blow, he doesn't even know why his argument is wrong in the first place (sadly because he has been given no 'soundbite' argument against his beliefs) and just receives those links straight up (Instead of "you're wrong because X", it's just, "you're wrong. Read all of this and your answer is somewhere in there").
In response to that he'll probably dismiss them as propaganda because his premises have never been challenged in the first place, see what I mean? I have seen this kind of response innumerable times by people who simply accept what they are told on the news. And while some people may never have the curiosity to change their stubborn beliefs, not everyone is like that. Some people are more curious and critical minded. My aim in this thread, like many threads, is to sharpen my argumentative skills.
Also, Joe Blow doesn't necessarily believe both 'govt will make more doctors' and 'there will be less doctors now because of this' simultaneously. I mean, some idiots might without realizing, but I'm just posting all the soundbites I'm hearing.
Cortes:I think you misunderstood my post. I am taking the role of Joe Blow in the context of the dialogue in this thread, who first made the argument. [..] My aim in this thread, like many threads, is to sharpen my argumentative skills.
I know YOU misunderstood my post. You asked for refutations of the argument you posed. I provided you a link to those refutations.
I'll spell it out for you.
You sharpen your argumentative skills by first actually increasing your knowledge of the subject. I provided you the link so that YOU might read the refutations. I was not suggesting you simply throw links at people you're wishing to debate with. I'm suggesting you actually take it upon yourself to actually study the subject you are wishing to debate so that you might be able to formulate your arguments yourself, instead of doing what you have now made evident you are doing (and what you told me you didn't want to do)...that is, simply go around requesting others make your arguments for you.
Yes, I certainly am reading them! I have been aware of the reading list and all those links long before I made these posts in this thread.
And as I read I have the knowledge and perspective necessary to combat the soundbites I constantly hear, even after I have read those articles. That is the whole point of all this.
I think I will refrain from making "somebody please post a link refuting X" type statements and instead just post the soundbite arguments I hear. That cool?
Well I narrowed the list for you.
Cortes:I think I will refrain from making "somebody please post a link refuting X" type statements and instead just post the soundbite arguments I hear. That cool?
I don't know about anyone else, but I would actually prefer the former. Requesting resources is great. Requesting people make your arguments for you, not so much.
It sounds like you're asking me if it's better that instead of you asking for resources, you simply continue posting arguments you want refuted and then expect people to forumulate your refutations for you.
I don't quite see how that is any different than what I was saying is bad form just a post ago.
It sounds like you're asking me if it's better that instead of you asking for resources, you simply continue posting arguments you want refuted and then expect people to forumulate your refutations for you. I don't quite see how that is any different than what I was saying is bad form just a post ago.
I see your point.
I thought I was doing something useful (I still think it is useful, but can't be relied on as the only way of getting information). I guess I want to make discussions into classroom type sessions, but that doesn't automatically oblige anybody to respond to it. I still don't see why asking for an answer is wrong on its own (I don't think you're suggesting this at all of course since you do think asking for a resource/link is indeed useful), but yeah, at its core that's what I was essentially doing.
I'm still trying to figure out the boundaries of how to do this.
It does come across that way and I'll refrain from doing it in such an overt manner, unless it's an argument I myself have trouble refuting.
Well it's not "bad" per se, but I will propose that it can get annoying, especially when the "devil's advocate arguments" are basic fallacies that actually have been "debunked so many times and in so many ways it's not even funny." That's a large part of the entire purpose of the "argumentation" section of the Ultimate Beginner meta-thread (especially the "___ threads" threads).
I mean, the question here is easily a matter of economic fact (as close as you can get to it anyway), and if you'd read those sources you'd easily have plenty of ways to answer. It's not like a more abstract philosophical question, or a request for best practices when dealing with a specific kind of person or something like that.
What you're asking for here is something that actually has been done to death.
But if you ever want resources, ask away. That's the best. (Obviously it would be good to check the meta thread and the links there to see if resources are already compiled), but ultimately simply requesting info on where to go to further your own study is kind of what is wanted. If you need clarification on something you've read, that's great too. There's plenty of threads with those kinds of questions and they get resolved pretty quickly.
But I actually created a special forum just for "devil's advocate", so if you're ever inclined, have at it there.
Cortes: It does come across that way and I'll refrain from doing it, unless it's an argument I myself have trouble refuting. I thought it was entertaining, but the problem is that it doesn't really help you. We don't have any way of knowing our arguments are going to be persuasive to imaginary person X, so it doesn't help us think of good arguments, nor you to accurately reflect the mindset of imaginary person X. That said, it's a blast to go out and mess with people at leftist websites, but it's extremely rare to "win an argument", as it turns into bans and nastiness really quickly with them. (In my experience.) At the end of the day they make a value judgement that at all costs the healthcare of the poor will be paid for because that is the right thing to do. Brick wall.
Cortes: It does come across that way and I'll refrain from doing it, unless it's an argument I myself have trouble refuting.
Seeing as how you're devils advocating right now
How do you debate the merits of a hypothetical free market healthcare system compared with present 2 tier systems like Germany, France, and Australia? I know for a fact that Canadian healthcare isn't what its blown up to be (since I live here for one thing), but I have no knowledge whatsoever of those 2 tier systems and would rather not make assumptions about them in the process of debating. From what I've been told, they've got cheap government healthcare that works okay and private insurance that covers everything else, and so far as I know there aren't any major problems.
From what I understand, Canada effectively has a two-tiered system anyway.
Canadian healthcare is nominally becoming two tiered and rapidly moving in the direction of private healthcare, but good luck getting any politician to admit it. It's very much a government controlled system, especially compared to the US or even Britain.
My Buddy - do you think the people in those countries aren't clamouring for more and more taxpayer funds to deal with government-imposed shortages? Of course they are, and the reason healthcare isn't viewed as being a problem in those countries is because they have already achieved the nirvana of state control. In the USA, healthcare is viewed by the locals to be worse than it is in those other countires by their locals because it does not lay beneath the aegis of the great god The State, and so of course it would all be so much better if only God took over.
Now in the countries where it is already state controlled God already runs the show, and so in people's minds there is no better alternative to the current system. The only improvement could be more and more funding. And so, more taxpayer funds go into bureaucracy and administration, and more people take advantage of services that they wouldn't pay for themselves but will gladly make use of if someone else foots the bill. Of course, this in turn creates an even greater reaction on the part of the state to crack down on 'unhealthy' activity - smoking, drinking, doing drugs, eating, simply being 'overweight'. And the slaves clamour for this crackdown too, since their labour pays for the treatment of these things, and they too are rivals for services which are always in shortage due to government controls.
My Buddy:Canadian healthcare is nominally becoming two tiered and rapidly moving in the direction of private healthcare, but good luck getting any politician to admit it. It's very much a government controlled system, especially compared to the US or even Britain.
Right but did you catch the video? I'm not sure I understand how what is shown there is any different from any other "two tiered" system. Unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that. I took it to mean a government-controlled single payer system for all or most citizens, paid for with tax dollars, and a private industry for customers who pay (a lot) directly themselves.
It sounds to me like that's exactly what Canada has. (Especially in Quebec, after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled such government monopolization of health care was essentially a violation of human rights.) That's why in Canada you now have "super hospitals"...or as we call them in America: "hospitals."
Here's an article about the possible future effects of the Medicaid extension part of the ruling.
The media doesn't seem to be talking about the Medicaid extension part as much as the individual mandate part.
John James: Also, wouldn't this mandate give the insurance companies more customers, and therefore incentive to lower costs? You mean kind of like how the school systems are incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers? Or like how the US Postal Service is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers? Or like how the DMV is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers? Or like how the police department is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers? Or like how the government itself is incentivized to lower costs (and increase quality) because of the legal monopoly that ensures they have more customers?
Your examples are not the same as an ostensible free market health care insurance transaction. The mechanism for the guaranteed income is through the legislative bodies. They don't care to be efficient because they can simply beg for money. With a mandate, the insurance companies would still have to "compete" for your business. As someone stated, there would be some competition. However, the mandate does nothing to address the cost of health care services or health care insurance itself. I think their argument that prices would drop is based on risk pooling. The mandate will add more people to the insurances rolls thus spreading the risk and reducing the cost. That is the argument the gator guy wants addressed without having to read a hundred different articles.
shackleford:They don't care to be efficient because they can simply beg for money.
That makes absolutely no sense.
With a mandate, the insurance companies would still have to "compete" for your business. As someone stated, there would be some competition.
Among the <5 companies that have the government permission to actually be in the health insurance market and won't be destroyed by the red tape and the loss of customers needing to go to larger companies that can actually absorb the cost of compliance in an ever-more regulated environment. "Competition" indeed.
However, the mandate does nothing to address the cost of health care services or health care insurance itself. I think their argument that prices would drop is based on risk pooling. The mandate will add more people to the insurances rolls thus spreading the risk and reducing the cost. That is the argument the gator guy wants addressed without having to read a hundred different articles.
1) he could pick out any one of those articles for which the title even remotely sounds like it might talk about cost and likely get his answer.
2) I provided a simple baker's dozen of links that directly address the health care cost issue. Not "a hundred".
3) Plenty of people would love answers simply regurgitated to them so that they don't have to do the research themselves. That doesn't mean everyone gets what they want.
4) I fail to see how reading what someone wrote at another web address to answer the question is any more difficult than what would have to be read here in the thread. (i.e. Why the heck should anyone here be expected to rewrite what others have already written scores of times just because someone is too lazy to navigate off the page to read?)
5) I did address the question anyway. Read the post again for the first time.
John James: shackleford:They don't care to be efficient because they can simply beg for money. That makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, it does.
John James: Among the <5 companies that have the government permission to actually be in the health insurance market and won't be destroyed by the red tape and the loss of customers needing to go to larger companies that can actually absorb the cost of compliance in an ever-more regulated environment. "Competition" indeed.
I'm assuming actual free market competition without any additional mandates. I think most of us understand why Obamacare is bad in its totality. Excluding all other mandates and problems, why is the risk pool argument not valid? The idea is to spread risk and there would be plenty of customers among which to spread the risk.
Excluding all other mandates and problems, why is the risk pool argument not valid?