shackleford:They don't care to be efficient because they can simply beg for money.
John James:That makes absolutely no sense.
shackleford:Yes, it does.
Anyone can "simply beg for your money."
Please explain why increases in efficiency occur if:
a) Anyone can "simply beg for your money"
&
b) the fact that they can beg means they "don't care to be efficient."
I'm assuming actual free market competition without any additional mandates.
...you mean assuming an economy that doesn't exist, even if Obamacare is repealed completely.
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.
You cannot be serious. The entire "risk pool argument" depends on there being mandates. Do you not even understand the argument you're debating?
Once again, I addressed this question in the post above. Once again I encourage you to actually read it.
I just now realized that my post here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/29788/477115.aspx#477115 did not have the link I meant to post in it. I must have forgot. Sorry about that. Here is the podcast: http://audio.ivoices.org/mp3/iipodcast554a.mp3
Again, a wonderful explanation of why the ruling is incorrect, and why the individual mandate is not a "tax" according to original Constitutional meaning. About half an hour long.
Off-topic question: how does one post a link as, for example, the text "Here" so that the text goes to the link? Sorry, I couldn't find it on the Beginner Meta-Thread. Thanks!
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.
It's normal html. You can either click the "source" button at the top left of the text editor and code directly, or you can click the "globe with the chainlink" button, which is the common symbol for "hyperlink".
Peter Schiff did a good job of explaining exactly what you just said...why the ruling is incorrect, and why the individual mandate is not a "tax" according to Constitution, and why it's unconstitutional even if you pretend it's a tax, and why the whole thing will fall apart...in about 20 minutes. All here.
The mandate will add more people to the insurances rolls thus spreading the risk and reducing the cost.
"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."
How do you know there will be "plenty" of customers to spread the risk? How many sick people have been added to the insurance pool and what is their individual costs? How many new healthy enrollees are going to join? This is impossible to know.
The penalty/tax for not enrolling is too low to actually force the uninsured to buy insurance. Some will join, others will find it cheaper to pay the tax. In fact, that is what allowed Roberts to rule that this law wasn't coercive (and thus constituitional), because the penalty for not buying insurance was so low it wouldn't force healthy, young individuals to enroll.
Also, the government believes that preventitive medicine will actually lower costs in the long term. I call BS on that as well. Just because someone now has insurance, are they going to magically lose weight, eat healthier, and exercise more. Are they going to stop smoking and drinking too much alcohol? Again, it is another impossible calculation to make, to say that preventitive care is going to lower costs.
Some will say "but people are already using the emergency room without insurance and then everyone else gets stuck footing the bill." This is true, but to what extent? It has been my experience that people with state Medicaid are the largest abusers of this, precisely because they get discharged with almost no copay, and then they come and get their prescription drugs for free. I don't believe it is the uninsured, healthy 25 year-old male that is rushing off to the E.R.
In my opinion, this is purposely designed to fail. Why? It's no secret the leftist wants to have a single payor system. If he can't legislate a single payor system, the backdoor option is to bankrupt the private insurers. As stated above, the penalties, which start at 1% of your income and cap out at 2.5%, are too low to force you to buy insurance. Also, the $2000 fine imposed on companies with more than 50 employees may also be cheaper than actually providing insurance. Now those companies have an excuse to stop providing insurance, because we can all get it from the state exchanges.
John James: shackleford:They don't care to be efficient because they can simply beg for money. John James:That makes absolutely no sense. shackleford:Yes, it does. Anyone can "simply beg for your money." Please explain why increases in efficiency occur if: a) Anyone can "simply beg for your money" & b) the fact that they can beg means they "don't care to be efficient." I'm assuming actual free market competition without any additional mandates. ...you mean assuming an economy that doesn't exist, even if Obamacare is repealed completely. 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. You cannot be serious. The entire "risk pool argument" depends on there being mandates. Do you not even understand the argument you're debating? Once again, I addressed this question in the post above. Once again I encourage you to actually read it.
The Post Office is not forced to be efficient because they can simply ask for bailouts from Congress. That's an inherent problem with the nature of government. I never said increases in efficiency would occur. The risk pool argument depends on there being at least one mandate - the mandate to purchase an insurance product. In my hypothetical situation, I was ignoring all other mandates and all ramifications and problems created by government through Obamacare. I think most of here understand why Obamacare is so terrible when you consider all of the other mandates it enacts.
Prime: "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." How do you know there will be "plenty" of customers to spread the risk? How many sick people have been added to the insurance pool and what is their individual costs? How many new healthy enrollees are going to join? This is impossible to know. The penalty/tax for not enrolling is too low to actually force the uninsured to buy insurance. Some will join, others will find it cheaper to pay the tax. In fact, that is what allowed Roberts to rule that this law wasn't coercive (and thus constituitional), because the penalty for not buying insurance was so low it wouldn't force healthy, young individuals to enroll. Also, the government believes that preventitive medicine will actually lower costs in the long term. I call BS on that as well. Just because someone now has insurance, are they going to magically lose weight, eat healthier, and exercise more. Are they going to stop smoking and drinking too much alcohol? Again, it is another impossible calculation to make, to say that preventitive care is going to lower costs. Some will say "but people are already using the emergency room without insurance and then everyone else gets stuck footing the bill." This is true, but to what extent? It has been my experience that people with state Medicaid are the largest abusers of this, precisely because they get discharged with almost no copay, and then they come and get their prescription drugs for free. I don't believe it is the uninsured, healthy 25 year-old male that is rushing off to the E.R. In my opinion, this is purposely designed to fail. Why? It's no secret the leftist wants to have a single payor system. If he can't legislate a single payor system, the backdoor option is to bankrupt the private insurers. As stated above, the penalties, which start at 1% of your income and cap out at 2.5%, are too low to force you to buy insurance. Also, the $2000 fine imposed on companies with more than 50 employees may also be cheaper than actually providing insurance. Now those companies have an excuse to stop providing insurance, because we can all get it from the state exchanges.
You're starting to address my question. Insurance companies have expected levels of payouts for certain types of customers based on their level of risk. In looking at the risk-pooling argument, I wanted to ignore the other mandates by Obamacare, including the penalty. I wanted to assume everyone bought insurance and look at what would happen if insurance companies could maintain the same profitable distribution of customers based on their risk but with a greater number of customers. The most immediate effect I can see is that overhead and administrative costs of handling the greater number of customers would increase and would raise the cost of insurance. Again, I'm ignoring all the other numerous problems in the real world. I just wanted to refute their initial argument assuming a best-case scenario for it.
Another argument to make is simply supply vs demand. We know the supply of doctors can't just get legislated into existence, and it may even decrease as the most talented individuals decide to seek employment elsewhere. My primary care doctor just retired in December because of all the healthcare changes. It wasn't worth his time to implement expensive medical records, etc...
But what will happen to demand for medical services? Obviously, the sick individuals who were previously uninsurable will seek more services from doctors. But what about the young and healthy individual? I would argue he too will start using health services, simply because he is forced to get insurance coverage. After all, he may as well get his moneys worth. In fact, I can personally attest to this. Prior to getting maried I didn't carry dental insurance, but now my wife insists that we get it. Guess what, I hadn't been to the dentist in years (and I don't have any dental problems I might add), but now that I'm "forced" to get coverage, I get checkups 2 times per year.
So, to summarize, we clearly will have more demand for healthcare services, and I will predict that we have a decrease in the supply of medical doctors.
I am surprised no one has brought up the premise that car insurance is mandatory by government edict. People now are just screaming about healthcare. We should have been screaming about car insurance.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Driving on statist roads is a "privilege," and thus it is a much easier mandate to validate.
"Driving on statist roads is a "privilege," and thus it is a much easier mandate to validate"
The right to move freely is a universal right according the UN Human Rights committee.
So what?
"So what?"
Mandatory auto insurance restricts my freedom of movement.
Who is referring to the UN Human Rights committee, though? The big argument in the U.S. is over constitutionality, aka the legality in reference to our body of "law".
"Who is referring to the UN Human Rights committee, though? The big argument in the U.S. is over constitutionality, aka the legality in reference to our body of "law"."
If one were so inclined one could argue that since the United States is a charter member of the United Nations then it must strive to maintain the basic human rights it agreed upon when entering into such an order. Being that one of those rights is the freedom to travel and being that the United States is restricting travel through mandatory insurance which is not apart of the legal restrictions, then one could say that making car insurance mandatory is a human rights violation. There is no argument over the constitutionally of mandatory health insurance. It is already been deemed constitutional. It has gone to the highest court.
There is no argument over the constitutionally of mandatory health insurance. It is already been deemed constitutional. It has gone to the highest court.
The bolded doesn't follow as it's stated, but yes, I meant to say "was" the big argument.
If one were so inclined one could argue that since the United States is a charter member of the United Nations then it must strive to maintain the basic human rights it agreed upon when entering into such an order. Being that one of those rights is the freedom to travel and being that the United States is restricting travel through mandatory insurance which is not apart of the legal restrictions, then one could say that making car insurance mandatory is a human rights violation.
Yes, you could make that argument. It woudn't go anywhere, but that more likely means it's a good argument in this day and age. My point was merely that the justification for the auto-mandate was different from the proposed justification for the healthcare mandate. You're also required to drive with a license, etc., but typically, this has been justified under the notion that driving on state roads is not a "right," but a priviliege.
See around 6:40. That's basically what I'm basing this off of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqsk
"Yes, you could make that argument. It woudn't go anywhere, but that more likely means it's a good argument in this day and age. My point was merely that the justification for the auto-mandate was different from the proposed justification for the healthcare mandate. You're also required to drive with a license, etc., but typically, this has been justified under the notion that driving on state roads is not a "right," but a priviliege."
There is precident for using UN charters as a means of repealing domestic law. A majority of roads are public roads and the US has an obligation to legally follow the freedom of travel therefore utilizing the road whether in terms of walking or motor vehicle is a basic human right.
Interesting. Care to point me to a case where this is done? It's fine if not; I'm more curious than anything.
shackleford:I never said increases in efficiency would occur.
Neither did I. You need to read more carefully. I said "increases in efficiency occur." And I want you to explain to me why that is, if:
b) as you say, the fact that they can beg means they "don't care to be efficient."
So tell me. Why do increases in efficiency occur? (Or would you prefer to take the position that increases in efficiency never occur?)
The risk pool argument depends on there being at least one mandate - the mandate to purchase an insurance product.
Isn't that what I said? Am I not the one who just told you that in my last post?
In my hypothetical situation, I was ignoring all other mandates and all ramifications and problems created by government through Obamacare. I think most of here understand why Obamacare is so terrible when you consider all of the other mandates it enacts.
Once again, I addressed this "doesn't forcing people to buy something mean costs will go down" question in the post above. Once again I encourage you to actually read it.
How Obamacare Will Screw the Young
Why Life Expectancy Will Decline Under ObamaCare
Libertarian Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare
Ron Paul Responds to Supreme Court Obamacare Decision
Justice Ginsberg Correctly Points Out That Romney Put the Country on the Road to Obamacare
Obamacare Destroyed
How You Can Find Out How Obamacare Will Impact You
15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America
"A Fine by Any Other Name Stinks as Bad," You Gowned Clown
When Robert Reich Told the Shocking Truth About Obamacare
Krugman Gets Stuffed Trying to Prove Socialized Canadian Healthcare is Great
Obamacare: 21 New or Higher Taxes
Robert Reich and Judge Napolitano on the Bizarre Logic of Justice Roberts
Trump on Obamacare
Why the President of the AMA Needs Her Breasts Cut Off
How Government Healthcare Interference Got Started in the U.S. and What It Will Lead To
A Paul Mulshine Mess
Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...
What Obama Cooked into the Healthcare Act to Get an Edge in the Election
How to Game Obamacare (And Eventually Collapse It)
What Would Romney Replace Obamacare With?
ObamaCare is RomneyCare
Mitt Romney First Introducing the Individual Mandate
I love the japanese when they go out and do this:
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/02/12/obama-sex-doll/
Shows that even foreigners understand how harmful the policies of the present adminstration are, when such jokes become acceptable.
Prime's right, I'm a medical biller for a small company. The biggest and most immediate difficulty we see with Medicare and Medicaid is that because nobody has any choices, ultimately it's the healthcare provider that gets screwed.
Each year we are forced to accept LESS MONEY for the same services, and each year we are forced to comply with more and more regulations that take more employees to complete. I haven't had a raise in about four years, and things keep getting worse for my company. We have to change our policies about providing services in order to cut costs, and we have less leeway to write off in order to help our poorer patients, because we just don't have the money.
On the other side of things, each year we also see an increase in the number of audits that come in from Medicare. Virtually every one of them is spurious, and it requires us to go through a large amount of manpower and paper to respond to. The first and second review steps usually ignore what is being submitted, so the whole thing gets forwarded up the chain a bunch of times on the Medicare end. I have visions of the armies of people employed by the government, whom I'm personally paying out of my own paycheck, required to basically do nothing of consequence. All because the initial number of audits shows up on somebody's statistical survey as "Medicare fraud averted" or something.
Bottom line from where I sit, the more the government gets involved with private insurance, the more private insurance will come to resemble public insurance, and that's bad for everyone.
Healthcare inflation is due to productivity differentials (labor intensive sectors see cost increases on top of wage growth) and was just was fast before the government healthcare programs. Problem is, inequality has increased a lot and middle class families (or what's left of the middle class after manufacturing was outsourced) can't afford the same standard of living. Excess inflation in healthcare: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=8kg But anyway, ignore these facts, back to the thread.
Healthcare inflation is due to productivity differentials (labor intensive sectors see cost increases on top of wage growth) and was just was fast before the government healthcare programs. Problem is, inequality has increased a lot and middle class families (or what's left of the middle class after manufacturing was outsourced) can't afford the same standard of living.
Excess inflation in healthcare:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=8kg
But anyway, ignore these facts, back to the thread.
Would the mandate help resolve this situation?
"Interesting. Care to point me to a case where this is done? It's fine if not; I'm more curious than anything."
Search around the Bricker amendment controversy in the 1950s.
For court cases:
US v. Pink
Oyama v. California
Seiji Fujii v. California
and Missouri v. Holland
The Holland case is the biggest.
EDIT: nvm
... Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will hit them were overblown. "They had their head in the sand," he told Secrets. That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight. With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine... Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."
...
Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will hit them were overblown. "They had their head in the sand," he told Secrets.
That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight. With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine...
Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."
My response to the ruling: