Florida Federal judge declares Obama Care unconstitutional

[Lake View Too]

You do realize that all of those you pointed out are paid through a single payer system, not an individual mandate, right? That was the Progressive Left's preference but not the bill that was passed.

I don't disagree that our taxes are used to pay for systems that we may or may not use, but I don't personally write Halliburton a check every month like I do Blue Cross Blue Shield. I am still looking for another similar service provided by private companies that I am required to pay for directly (not through taxes) so that others can receive a similar service. I have yet to find one.

You personally write an income tax payment that, in part, goes to Halliburton. My point is that we all pay for services for the collective good, whether we want to or not. Income tax is a forced mandate. The health insurance mandate, while it is burdensome, just like the fact that I have to pay for Halliburton's profit, is a collective good, in that it allows people with pre-conditions to be included in the insured group, and provides health care for currently uninsured people who are burdening the entire medical system.

 

[BeachSiO2]

You personally write an income tax payment that, in part, goes to Halliburton. My point is that we all pay for services for the collective good, whether we want to or not. Income tax is a forced mandate. The health insurance mandate, while it is burdensome, just like the fact that I have to pay for Halliburton's profit, is a collective good, in that it allows people with pre-conditions to be included in the insured group, and provides health care for currently uninsured people who are burdening the entire medical system.

But you are making the argument for a single payer system not an individual mandate- for the collective good. We are not disagreeing, nor am I trying to be disagreeable on how taxes are spent by the government. I am just trying to find one other program like this as paying income taxes is not the same as paying BCBS.

I wish we did all have to write 12 checks a month to the government one to cover our individual or family share of each of the 12 appropriations bills that run the government. Heck, I would be glad if we only had to write one check a month covering our share instead of the money being withdrawn from our paychecks before we "feel the pain." Heck, that would lead to real reform in a second.

From my seat in the bleachers, I believe that the removal of the individual mandate would lead to a single payer system. I think so many people want the pre-existing conditions coverage, and other things (I am part of this group) that it will not be financially feasible for a private insurance company to insure the sick without having the healthy be forced to participate. The question for me is how long will it take before we are moved to the government-run program.

 

[Lake View Too]

But you are making the argument for a single payer system not an individual mandate- for the collective good. We are not disagreeing, nor am I trying to be disagreeable on how taxes are spent by the government. I am just trying to find one other program like this as paying income taxes is not the same as paying BCBS.

I wish we did all have to write 12 checks a month to the government one to cover our individual or family share of each of the 12 appropriations bills that run the government. Heck, I would be glad if we only had to write one check a month covering our share instead of the money being withdrawn from our paychecks before we "feel the pain." Heck, that would lead to real reform in a second.

From my seat in the bleachers, I believe that the removal of the individual mandate would lead to a single payer system. I think so many people want the pre-existing conditions coverage, and other things (I am part of this group) that it will not be financially feasible for a private insurance company to insure the sick without having the healthy be forced to participate. The question for me is how long will it take before we are moved to the government-run program.

Your last paragraph is exactly my sentiments. The indiviual mandate was a nessessity to 1. include the pre-conditions clause and other good parts of the bill, and 2. not to move to a solely government-run program, and 3. to insure that the insurance companies still make their bucks. It's very unfortunate that someone has to make a profit off the health care of the citizens of this country, but nobody seems to want the boogie man of Socialism, so therefore we have some kind of a mutant hybrid system that will be tied up in the courts for decades.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't care about the insurance companies making their $ - their profits and methods are obscene.

The whole insurance industry is long due for an overhaul IMO - especially one where the taxpayers stop ponying up for idiots to build where they shouldn't!

 

[AlphaCrab]

The decision has just been issued in Pensacola that Congress had exceeded its authority. Next stop...the Supreme Court.

I can only imagine what those two clowns, Scalia and Thomas, the Republican/ Tea Party SCOTUS "activists" will do on this one....this already stinks of Bush vs Gore.

Hopefully they will both retire or be retired in the next year--I pray.

 

[BeachSiO2]

I don't care about the insurance companies making their $ - their profits and methods are obscene.

Do you believe private insurance can survive if they have to cover pre-existing conditions without mandatory coverage for all? One quick example I know of is that my mom is probably at least a 10-1 loss when comparing her payments in versus their payments out and she is in her low 60's. I know of one person who's one hospital stay was over $200k and he's only 40. No way he's covered the insurance company's portion of that cost.

I agree the current system is a winner for them (and a travesty in a lot of ways) but I wonder how to modify the industry without killing it. Or IS government ran healthcare paid for by taxes the answer? I honestly don't know but would like to see the numbers. Where are our insurance agents on the board?

For the record, I am for covering those with pre-existing conditions..

 

[scooterbug44]

Yes, I think they can - it just hurts their profit margins.

In those examples you cite - your mother is currently exceeding her contributions, but my guess is that her lifetime contributions are still more than she has taken out and if they aren't, the rest of her "pool" is still keeping the ink black. (At least that's the excuse they give for jacking up my premium each year). Not to mention that in a couple years when she is 65 (aka when it starts to get real expensive) Medicare foots the majority of the bill and relieves the private insurance company of most of the cost.

Also, just because your friend had a $200K bill doesn't mean that is what the insurance company paid out or what it cost to provide him that care. That's just the "sticker price".

I think getting costs REAL and reduced would go a long way. I also think we need a HUGE preventative medicine push.

 

[BeachSiO2]

Yes, I think they can - it just hurts their profit margins.

In those examples you cite - your mother is currently exceeding her contributions, but my guess is that her lifetime contributions are still more than she has taken out and if they aren't, the rest of her "pool" is still keeping the ink black. (At least that's the excuse they give for jacking up my premium each year). Not to mention that in a couple years when she is 65 (aka when it starts to get real expensive) Medicare foots the majority of the bill and relieves the private insurance company of most of the cost.

Also, just because your friend had a $200K bill doesn't mean that is what the insurance company paid out or what it cost to provide him that care. That's just the "sticker price".

I think getting costs REAL and reduced would go a long way. I also think we need a HUGE preventative medicine push.

In my two examples, my mom has cost them well over a million and hasn't paid in nearly that much, but you're right- her pool likely has. they can't drop her as it's a company policy. My dad's at least a three to one loss as he's been a lot healthier (and not delivered two perfect sons ;-)).

As for the other case, the $200k was the part paid by the insurance company or at least listed as such on the bill. He is very healthy and just got a wierd infection. Not to mention, he works for a drug company and has a great plan.

Here's my question though, we are designing a system where we are adding more pre-existing conditions, etc. so what will that do to those pools. Will the more healthy among us have to pay more? How much more? I see a situation where we have more people (baby boomers) living longer due to more expensive procedures with a shrinking pool size of the healthy. I don't see a way where this doesn't become government ran.

I completely agree with your last sentence!

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't have the data, but my assumption is that based on the pool size, we are not adding a significant percentage of people with massively expensive pre-existing conditions.

Many of the pre-existing conditions insurance companies use to deny people insurance are not because they currently have a $$$ condition - it's because those items MIGHT be a sign of future difficulties, or (and this sucks) because they can just make money doing so - charging higher premiums, attaching riders, and not paying for relatively inexpensive care to nickel and dime folks.

And the new rules to make it clearer for people to compare plans and buy directly from the insurance companies also gives us more financial wiggle room - because a large percentage of your premium isn't going to a broker.

Sign up for a health insurance policy and on average 20% of your first year's premium and 5% of the second year's goes to the insurance agent. Many get more based on the company and other criteria - up to 30%.

 

[GoodWitch58]

from a political point of view I find it ironic that it was the insurance lobby that insisted upon the mandate--according to the best research on the way the bill was crafted that I can find.

And, it is the Republicans who support the industry primarily for the huge campaign contributions they get from the industry (I know some Democrats also get $$, but Republicans get more), yet the Republicans are determined to try to kill the reform act and the mandate--

so, when the insurance industry complains about that; and the people who are enjoying the benefits of the reform complain about having benefits being taken away...what is going to happen?

not a bad strategy for a public option, I think.