16 Aug 2011, 1:03 am
16 Aug 2011, 1:05 am
16 Aug 2011, 1:09 am
Inuyasha wrote:
To torpedo your entire argument, one of the Democrat's main claims is there are no death panels deciding who gets care and who doesn't.
State Government of Oregon ≠ Federal Government of the United States of America
One difference being that the US Government isn't (yet) constrained by moronic balanced budget ammendments (Oregon's particularly inane version bans surpluses of a certain amount).
Inuyasha wrote:
Well we saw a death panel deciding that a woman should kill herself, because it didn't fit with their cost benefit analysis, and we saw the dark reality of what Obamacare is going to be like.
The Heritage Foundation-RomneyCare National plan probably won't be that bad unless stupid balanced budget ammendments are passed to force cost-cutting across the government admist a recession. Regardless, the healthcare administered didn't decide that she had to die, they decided that after $1000s spent, medication that extended the life two months in some experimental trials wasn't a sound investment. The particular letter writer, with misguided intentions, thought she might like the suicide pill - it was a dumb thing to include, for sure.
HMO Death Panels don't weigh whether an extra two months is worth $4000, they weigh whether they'll cover that drug on the basis of how much money they can squeeze out of you with premiums. If you're young, healthy, and unlikely to die soon, they'll cover that drug after getting well more than that from you in premiums over your long life. If you're old and need a drug immediately that would almost certainly extend your life 8 years, they almost certainly wouldn't cover it.
Inuyasha wrote:
Whether or not you choose to be honest with yourself is something you have to decide for yourself.
I'll take my chance with the public servants adminstering healthcare in Canada over the HMO Death Panels any day of the week, thank you very much.
16 Aug 2011, 1:17 am
16 Aug 2011, 1:23 am
16 Aug 2011, 1:54 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Isn't your Canadian System in danger of going broke.
How the hell can the Canadian Healthcare system "go broke"? It's a monopsony system where all healthcare service is bought by the government. As it is financed by the government, that either means taxation or deficit spending is used to fund healthcare. The only way I could conceive of a system like this going "broke" is if the government decides to stop buying a sufficient amount of healthcare services for most of the citizenry, and that's hard to define.
Regardless, per capita healthcare costs are lower than in the USA.
16 Aug 2011, 1:59 am
16 Aug 2011, 2:35 am
16 Aug 2011, 11:37 am
Master_Pedant wrote:
Regardless, per capita healthcare costs are lower than in the USA.
Not only that, but for that lower price per capita, we manage to provide universal, medically necessary care.
As for this present issue, I'm going to put my cynic hat on for a moment, and ask whether this result isn't exactly what the President wanted?
Inuyasha has demonstrated himself to be a pretty poor legal scholar in the past, and I do not for a moment assume that his assertions about severability are correct. Severability is the assumption in statory interpretation, and unless he can point to a section of the legislation that demonstrates non-severability, then the balance of the act will remain good law.
Well, that is going to very quickly create an unsustainable position. Americans will have been promised universal health insurance, and insurers will be forced to accept all applicants. Which means that free riders will avoid the system until they get sick. Costs will balloon, leading either to bankruptcy, or skyrocketing premiums. In theory Congress could incentivize the free riders to buy early (by imposing a tax penalty at the time of purchase for those who have delayed, for example). But if there is no appetite in Congress to create a roundabout route to the individual mandate, then Congress will, I suggest, wind up utterly destroying universal coverage through private markets. The only alternative left will be public insurance.
Conservatives should be very, very careful what they wish for, for they may wind up winning a Pyrrhic victory that paves the way for universal public health insurance because it will be the only option left.
16 Aug 2011, 11:55 am
visagrunt wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Regardless, per capita healthcare costs are lower than in the USA.
Not only that, but for that lower price per capita, we manage to provide universal, medically necessary care.
As for this present issue, I'm going to put my cynic hat on for a moment, and ask whether this result isn't exactly what the President wanted?
Inuyasha has demonstrated himself to be a pretty poor legal scholar in the past, and I do not for a moment assume that his assertions about severability are correct. Severability is the assumption in statory interpretation, and unless he can point to a section of the legislation that demonstrates non-severability, then the balance of the act will remain good law.
Well, that is going to very quickly create an unsustainable position. Americans will have been promised universal health insurance, and insurers will be forced to accept all applicants. Which means that free riders will avoid the system until they get sick. Costs will balloon, leading either to bankruptcy, or skyrocketing premiums. In theory Congress could incentivize the free riders to buy early (by imposing a tax penalty at the time of purchase for those who have delayed, for example). But if there is no appetite in Congress to create a roundabout route to the individual mandate, then Congress will, I suggest, wind up utterly destroying universal coverage through private markets. The only alternative left will be public insurance.
Conservatives should be very, very careful what they wish for, for they may wind up winning a Pyrrhic victory that paves the way for universal public health insurance because it will be the only option left.
One reason your healthcare is cheaper is because you aren't paying for the prescription drugs and letting us foot the R&D bill, freeloaders.
16 Aug 2011, 12:50 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 1:36 pm
16 Aug 2011, 1:43 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 2:03 pm
16 Aug 2011, 4:13 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,282
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 Aug 2011, 4:14 pm
