LibertyLover says:

#32, The answer to your question is to get government out of the way.

330,000 pages of regulations is way too much for anybody to feasibly manage without raising the costs to hire a team of compliance people.

How much money do you think a simple visit to the doctor’s office would cost you if that doctor wasn’t hampered by those regulations?

simongiln says:

#27: “As for your argument, health insurance = auto insurance, that is impossible, one doesn’t run over other people with their bad health.”

True, but my lack of Insurance raises Health Insurance costs for everyone else, even if I never go to the ER for “FREE” care, that you’d end up paying for too. Again, when everyone buys into the system, costs come down universally (bigger pool==lower rates).

Again, I don’t like the mandate either, but fundamentally it’s not an invalid idea.

#29: “As evidenced by the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security systems? Everybody pays into that but not everybody uses it and it can’t even stay afloat.”

As a result of private sector costs; not actual costs of running Medicare (Social Security is a different discussion). Systemic costs for healthcare have risen, but Medicare revenue has not gone up (unlike private insurance). And actually, the people who use Medicare *don’t* pay into it, and that’s part of the problem. If we simply gave people below 65 the option to buy into the system by paying a little more, we could easily deal with the revenue problem.

#29: “Besides, the Federal Government doesn’t have the authorisation as per the Constitution.”

Reread Article III Section 2 & Article I Section 8: In short, Interstate Commerce + General Welfare + Supreme Court Rulings = Legal Right. The FBI isn’t innumerated in the constitution either, yet that’s considered legal. Hell, a standing army isn’t even innumerated in the constitution: “To raise and support Armies, **but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years**” (Article I, Section 8).

Sorry, but I’m of the opinion that Interstate Commerce and General Welfare were put in the constitution for a reason. And even if they weren’t, the Supreme Court thinks they were, which comes to the same result.

#33 “The ONLY reason the health industry is as messed up as it is can be summed up in one word – LAWYERS!”

And you think lawyers are a bigger problem in the healthcare industry than in any other industry because why? No other industry is shielded from lawsuits, yet we still live in the richest nation in the world. Tort Reform is, and has always been, a red herring. Many states have tried it, and it’s always failed to result in lower costs for consumers.

And even if it did result in lower costs, I wouldn’t support that sort of bastardisation of our legal system. The judiciary is the most important protector of our rights. I would never support castrating it in such a way.

Rick says:

#37 so, from a government point of view it’d be better to allow hospitals to reject patients? I’m not saying that I can’t see your point (I am all for rules that negate the “cost” to others that I apparently would cause if I were to ride without a helmet or seatbelt – let it be my choice, my cost). Apart from the odd equation of the two there is a big difference between an environment in which people choose not to do the best option and one in which the system has built up processes and procedures (rules) that make it not even a choice. I don’t buy that most people who are not insured are buying jeans with white threads instead of insurance.

More to the point of your comment, however, is that you just suggested that monetary pressure is a good enough reason to deny someone coverage. Isn’t one of the big conservative push-backs centered on how Obama would let Granny die because she cost too much? And how is this not the same as denying coverage to someone who had no money?

Full circle…Granny can’t afford hospital A, so why not let Granny go to cheap-version Hospital B? Oh yeah, because A and B are both well fit and prices, the lowest ones, are unusually and unnaturally high. There is no option for Granny.

I once had a math teacher who, when I said “I’ll never need to know this to balance my checkbook” replied that he hoped I’d want to do more with my time than just be able to balance a check-book. Seems to me we can debate all day about right and freedom and all that, but at the end I don’t believe there really is anyone with the right motivations who really doesn’t/wouldn’t want to do more than just balance our checkbook. Show me who really thinks it’d be ok to let Granny die…and then I’ll show you where they stand to make a buck on her death.

LibertyLover says:

#38, No, it is not good to let people die for lack of access to health care.

But you have to understand that the reason they don’t have access is because HC has gotten too expense because gov regulations have made it too expensive.

Adding MORE regulations is not going to solve the problem. Something will have to give — it will either get more expensive or the quality will go down for everyone. Those are the only two outcomes.

Return HC to the service industry where it belongs and get the government out of the equation. They got us in the mess, not insurance companies.

LibertyLover says:

#41, Nope. I understand and fear the same thing.

But the problem isn’t the industry.

It is the 330,000 pages of regulations they have to follow.

The Federal Government is the Clear and Present Danger to this country.

simongiln says:

#37

Social Darwinism at it’s finest.

Also, it’s fine to disagree with the Supreme Court’s decisions, but the constitution itself delegates who’s constitutional opinions are valid, and it’s the Supreme Court (Article III Section 2). Pretty much all other opinions are just heckling from the bleachers. If Social Security is constitutionally legal under the welfare clause (Helvering v. Davis), then there’s no reason Healthcare reform wouldn’t be. Also, the idea that Heathcare–an industry that takes up a sixth of the US economy–doesn’t qualify as commerce is rather silly.

#40 (same dude/-et)

In one post, saying costs are too high *because* everyone gets covered, then in another saying you *want* everyone to get covered, and they would if… I’m sorry, you weren’t very clear… Less paperwork? Surly not… Not everyone getting covered. That’s *why* the costs would be lower. You can’t have it both ways, though.

You can’t have lower costs by not covering people *and* have universal coverage. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

There’s a reason why no country in the world has *less* government involvement in healthcare *and* better coverage than the US.

bobbo, the devout evangelical anti-theist says:

#45–LIEBERTY LOSER===”I don’t really care what other countries are doing.” /// Yep, don’t let facts ruin a good dogma.

yap, yap, yap—where’s my bone?

LibertyLover says:

#47, I would like to go back to what the Constitution was supposed to be written for — protecting the Rights of the people. What has happened is those Rights have slowly been chipped away.

The Supreme Court was originally supposed to handle cases between states and to act as the final say in federal cases. However, in the 1890s, that all changed when people started filing suits against the Federal Government on Constitutional grounds (which is ok, I’m not denying that purpose). The problem is that with the Federal Government involved in so many States issues, they have become more than they were intended to be. FDR just made it worse.

There is a difference between completely throwing it in the trash and trying to get it restored.

simongiln says:

#48

Once more with feeling:
The constitution is very clear about who has the valid legal authority to interpret the constitution: The Supreme Court (and lower courts as necessary; SCOTUS being the highest of them, and thus the one that defines the discussion for everyone else). This interpretation is backed by precedent. You’re personal opinion on the matter is about as legally binding as a Harry Potter novel.

Interpreting the constitution without consideration to Supreme Court decisions is like speaking to a deaf person without knowing sign language and pointedly ignoring the guy behind her yelling at you about what she’s trying to say (Constitution is to Joey Lucas as Supreme Court is to Kenny Thurman; for a West Wing reference).

American Auto Insurance says:

I really enjoyed this post. I will definitely check back later for more informative posts from you. Thanks!

simongiln says:

#53

So, instead of accepting the SCOTUS rulings as valid (as clearly stated by the Constitution), you simply throw them out because they don’t agree with you. Sorry, reality doesn’t work that way. What the Supreme Court *says* the Constitution means *is* what the Constitution means, unless overruled by a more recent SCOTUS ruling.

Political background is good to know as a historical matter, but it’s irrelevant to the legality of the rulings. You’re peaching about FDR really only serves to prove that you’re opinions have been out dated for well over a hundred years.

The fact is that no country in this would has a health system run the way you wish ours was run *and* produces better results. Completely apart from the fact that you have no legal foot to stand on, there are no countries in this world that you can use as examples to support your ideology.

You’re an ideologue, with no feet to stand on. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can move on from your denial to anger (then bargaining, etc…).

//#54 insert waste treatment joke here

bobbo, knowing libertarianism is not Dogma says:

#56–LIEBERTY LOSER==”I feel that just because it happened once, doesn’t mean it should happen again. We need to correct those mistakes, not build on them.” /// So–YOU correct FDR’s plan to pack the court which never happened by defeating health care?

Well, your feelings run quite high.

Any true libertarian would be “for” universal healthcare and the argument should focus on how to pay for it.

Anything else is self centered BS mascarading as any loose idea put out there.

Having owned my own business, I respect your continuing achievement on that front. You ought to share a few good engineering/shit jokes. I can’t think of any, other than every position you have taken on this blog. An those have just been shit positions without the social engineering considered.