That is no problem for an outfit like the Heritage, magical thinking is currently a property of those think tanks nowadays.
There are several big reasons that US health care is so expensive:
1)Health insurance companies are operated as for-profit enterprises. In order to profit, they add overhead to the cost of health care.
-
In order to increase profits, Health insurance companies spend a lot of effort to avoid paying, or pay less for services. Health care providers are then forced to employ specialists to negotiate with the insurance companies. This adds overhead at both ends.
-
Health care providers are not legally or ethically allowed to deny life-saving care based on inability to pay. Thus in order to avoid going broke, the providers have to amortize this cost over patients that are able to pay. Ditto for stingy insurance coverage that does not pay the full cost of providing the care…see point two above.
-
Health insurance premiums are high, because young healthy individuals often do not buy insurance. This means that the insurance customers are self selected older/sicker people who use more benefits, thus premiums have to be higher.
The mandate is aimed at points three and four. If everyone has coverage, then nobody will need to make up for those that get treated and have no way to pay. Healthy people will be required to carry insurance, reducing the premiums.
Point one, and partially two is addressed by the PPACA by the mandate that 80-85% of premiums used to pay for health care services.
To fully address point 2, a single payer system would be required. With only ONE insurer to deal with, medical offices could eliminate much of the staff currently needed to process and follow up on insurance claims.
I understand that the mandate was ultimately barely passed as a tax, but what bothers me is that the four liberal judges were willing to pass it under the commerce clause, and that most of my liberal friends don’t seem to have any problem with this. Or were you referring to something else?
Why does it bother you that this doesn’t bother them? And I’d still like to hear your view on the alternatives if you think this program gives the government too much power. By definition I’d think a UHC program would have to be even bigger and more involved.
I’m referring to the idea that a lot of liberals seemed to perceive the legislation as being effectively a Democratic victory for UHC, even if it doesn’t actually go completely in that direction, and have this conception of needing to support it entirely along party lines even though parts of it were compromises, and like the mandate, as originally written, would seem to be based more in the other party.
I recognize that true UHC involves an expansion of government, but it doesn’t involve an expansion of government power the way the mandate would have if it had been passed under the commerce clause.
It calls into question my ideas of how purely partisan judges would rule on certain issues and takes away the small amount of happy fuzzy feelings I get when thinking about Obama getting to appoint a SCJ. 
It sounds like you somehow missed all the complaints and disappointment from liberals over this law. They wanted UHC and didn’t get it, they wanted a public option and didn’t get it. The list goes on.
I think most people are very well aware that this is a compromise and have decided that if you want more people to get health care, a compromise that gets health care to millions of additional people is significantly better than nothing even if it’s far from perfect. It should be obvious that most of the better options were simply not going to happen.
I guess that would depend on how it were justified. The commerce clause argument was shot down anyway.
I was referring to to the notion that the mandate represented a “victory at any cost”, “overreaching government power” or a violation of liberal “basic principles”. Are you arguing against the individual mandate or the Alien and Sedition Acts?
The commerce clause and potential abuse is indeed worth analyzing. It’s not mentioned in the OP, though.
It isn’t, and I don’t think anyone ever claimed it was. In fact, it’s not even particularly related to the cost of health care at all, but to a completely different problem: Namely, that some people can’t get health insurance at all, no matter how much they’re willing to spend, because they already have pre-existing conditions. And really, the individual mandate doesn’t solve that, either. What solves that problem is requiring the insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. But that raises another problem, in that if that were all that was done, then the insurance companies would go bankrupt, since nobody would ever buy insurance until they needed it, and the whole premise of insurance requires that people buy it before they need it. That’s the problem that the individual mandate is solving.
Now, honestly, I don’t see insurance companies going out of business as, itself, inherently a problem. Plenty of industries have collapsed as societal advances have made them unnecessary. But we have to put the replacement in place before that happens, because bad though the insurance companies may be, they’re still better than nothing.
This.
And to the OP’s latest notion, that somehow this use of the Commerce Clause should concern us - the Constitution doesn’t suggest that there’s a limit to Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. Other than the ballot box, which I’d regard as sufficient.
So, after two and a half years of litigation, the Supreme Court says the mandate is within Congress’ powers. The next day… we are asked to defend the mandate as an “overreach of government power.”
What the flying fuck?
:rolleyes: The mandate is not the only provision in the ACA. It also expands Medicaid eligibility and provides substantial subsidies for poor and working class people.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
So, after two and a half years of litigation, the Supreme Court says the mandate is within Congress’ powers. The next day… we are asked to defend the mandate as an “overreach of government power.”
What the flying fuck?
[/QUOTE]
What indeed. What indeed.
I assume the guy who started this thread is a “liberal” like all those “liberals” on Fox News who do nothing but wag their fingers at Democratic politicians. Otherwise I can’t understand why he’s sitting here spouting vacuous GOP talking points about “government overreach”. The mandate is Constitutional. So suck it, Obamacare haters.
wow.
Smh …
I’m getting tired of explaining to you that when you’re in Great Debates, you need to keep your posts appropriate for this forum. “Suck it” doesn’t qualify and the speculation about the OP’s motives has minimal relevance. I’m giving you a formal warning in the hope this will start to sink in.
Well that weird looking tall guy was no George W. Bush.
I wasn’t clear in the OP. I’m referring to the original justification under the commerce clause, which wasn’t ruled as constitutional.
I think it’s obvious why the Act was generally a thing liberals would love, but it’s not obvious to me why liberals would go beyond merely being able to swallow the mandate to get the rest of the goodies, and actually promote it under the commerce clause.
Because they felt it was Constitutional under the basis of the commerce clause?
If you want to argue about the Commerce Clause, limiting discussion to the ACA is outright bizarre. Jurisprudence for well more than the last half-century depends on Congress’s expansive power to regulate interstate commerce, a power that’s not circumscribed in the Constitution and that jurists liberal and conservative alike use to defend the constitutionality of laws. Many of the decisions with the most seemingly outré interpretations of the Commerce Clause were penned by conservatives.
Roberts, breaking with existing legal precedent, wrote an opinion based on something else, but it’s easy to make a solid constitutional argument for the ACA under the commerce clause, one fitting well with precedent.
Liberals should treat this ever-so-selective “conservative” opposition to the Commerce Clause as the political game-playing that it is, and certainly shouldn’t sacrifice Congress’s power to regulate commerce in an attempt to make the GOP happy.
But do they really?
Or, is this, as I previously said, a mandate that is ‘all bark and no bite’?
Why do liberals need to defend it? Conservatives are the ones who came up with it.