BF2S Forums Supreme Court begins review of health-care law

If they really wanted to reform health care they would lower the barriers to entry that each state has set up on behalf of the insurance companies that got there first. Unlike nationwide insurance companies like Geico or Progressive or All State, health insurance companies have to set up an affiliate in each state. This is designed to protect the existing players from competition. Lack of competition means cartels form (in this case, government aided), and prices high.

The problem with limiting competition, and at the same time imposing profit caps, is that you remove all incentive for the insurance companies to use their leverage to force price controls on the rest of the market. If you limit the companies to a 4% profit, well, 4% of $100 is $4, but 4% of $1000 is $40, so why wouldn't they help along the hyperinflation in the market? If health insurance companies were allowed to operate like the aforementioned national insurance companies, we'd see much lower rates.

Corruption at the state level has caused this mess, but everyone screaming about the 10th amendment and federalism has, in this case, caused the monstrosity that is ObamaCare to be formed. There's no reform here, it's just a bunch of giant sized and poorly thought out bandaids that are going to make the problem even worse than it was before the Act was enacted.

The most amusing thing to me is that the people complaining most are the morbidly obese rednecks that eat nothing but sticks of butter and smoke 12 packs a day.

There's a few states already showing their intent not to take up the healthcare funds.

I'm sure they won't go begging for anything down the track...

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Or you can just ignore it. If you jigger your dependents so that you receive no money back from the government at the end of the year you don't have to pay the penalty, just ignore it. The law has no way for the IRS to force you to pay the penalty except by snatching it out of your refund. So avoid the refund every year, decline insurance until you get sick, grab a plan, and save yourself tens of thousands of dollars. Gotta love terribly thought out legislation.

since I have health insurance already I won't have to pay any tax at all.  Do you not have health insurance?

I have health insurance through work. I didn't have health insurance for a five year period though and I didn't go bankrupt.

Stingray24 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I like the idea of HC reform but there's something wacky about being taxed for not buying anything.

Precisely.  Quite sure the majority of the US want reform, just not a massive government expansion and/or takeover of the system in the process.

I'd actually rather see single-payer healthcare like in every other first world country than Obamacare which, while noble, basically handed the entire country to the health insurance companies on a silver platter. But that's not gonna happen until people stop believing the myth that you have to wait several months to see a doctor in Canada or England.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2012-07-10 07:30:00)

AussieReaper wrote:

There's a few states already showing their intent not to take up the healthcare funds.

I'm sure they won't go begging for anything down the track...

Texas doesn't need help to put out wild fires. The governor will just pray.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Have there been any studies looking at how long people have to wait for different levels of care in Canada or the UK or Australia? Not saying you're wrong, but I would like to know how often stories like that actually happen. After all, people are more likely to share their horror story than their "everything went as it ought to" story.

It depends on how rural the area is. A lot of provinces have a severe shortage of doctors.

the last 4 times i've gotten a prescription it's been for generic drugs

but if the primary reason canada keeps there prices down are generic drugs, and the US insurance does the same thing but prices are higher, what is the difference?

You: Canada care is cheap because they use generic drugs
Me: I get generic prescriptions in the US all the time
You: Yes, companies sell the name-brand drugs first and then later sell generics drugs.

so what you are saying is?

Any doctor can set a broken bone or prescribe cough medicine for a kid with the sniffles. It's the cutting edge surgical techniques and cancer treatments that I'm worried would vanish if they ever attempted a single payer system here.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at Medicare and Medicaid and then turn around and say that the government should be more involved in the health care system rather than less involved. Bureaucrats don't have any incentive to keep costs down. It's why shit like Hoverounds get covered.

I don't think people who advocate single payer really understand what they're asking for. The government can afford to provide basic medical coverage. This means waits, generic drugs, manual wheel chairs etc. Not the bells and whistles that everyone has gotten used to. And woe if they they ever tried to make the system scientific and actually efficient, good luck granny getting your seventy five pills per week so you can extend your life three months

Last edited by Jay (2012-07-10 08:26:45)

Slightly dated, but pretty informative: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/127893.php

The US spent approximately 160 billion on medical research in 2008, 35 billion of which was funded by the government.

Together G7 countries were responsible for over 88% of all publicly funded health research undertaken by high-income countries in 2005: USA US$ 35 billion, Japan US$ 6.3 billion, UK US$ 4.2 billion, France US$ 3.5 billion, Germany US$ 3.3 billion, Canada US$ 2.7 billion, Italy US$ 2.5 billion

That doesn't mean it's funded by the government.

my employer is making 80 dollars an hour to read her emails

Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-07-10 09:24:48)