In australia for every year after you turn 30 you get a 1% penalty on private health care. I got mine when I was 35 so I pay 5% more than the baseline. This means that most people who can afford it get private cover over and above UHC when thy turn 30.
My bad. I meant “Countries”. (See Wikipedia for examples).
Whatever, but what there’s a definitive interstate market in labor and health care is routinely used as a form of compensation. Finding markets that don’t touch upon interstate commerce is the real challenge.
And why wouldn’t you buy it? The welfare clause is in the constitution after all. There are certainly solid economic grounds for the provision of pubic goods: eg lighthouses would be supported in suboptimal quantities by free markets. So it’s unsurprising that the constitution would permit such activities, even if their understanding of the dismal science was primitive. Admittedly, the healthcare market has rather different sorts of market failures.
I honestly see little difference between tariffs on imported products, mandated bundling of safety equipment in certain consumer products and forced purchases of …public goods, via a flat per-person tax. I see the US constitution as a reasonably flexible document -intended as such- although I trust that the Articles of Confederation has its supporters.
Actually poll taxes were advocated under Thatcher. The idea was to remind residents of the City of London that the Greater London Council wasn’t just conjuring all its services out of thin air. (No worries, but when it is conceded that the health care bill would be upheld by the courts, discussion of constitutional matters necessarily wanders into hypothetical territory.)
Wrong. Team Left is on the one yard line insofar as health care reform is considered. The Senate bill represents an enormous advance in human welfare and fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, the media is full of double poxers, those who blame both sides equally independent of the underlying facts.
Carthage must be destroyed. And we should pass the damn bill.
There is a ***huge ***difference between regulating commerce that people choose to engage in, and forcing people to engage in that commerce in the first place. That was the point of my posting.
Yes it is, but the tough part is getting at the original intent. I’ve done a fair amount of reading on this subject, and it was definitely not meant as carte blanche for a power-hungry Congress - else why have the 10th Amendment at all? it’s arguable that it doesn’t even justify so much of what we already have - Dept of Education certainly, and probably HHS and HUD. In fact, strictly read, some say the Constitution enables the Federal government to only do about 3 things: defend the borders, settle disputes between the states, and build roads (so they can deliver the mail).
Then you and I (along with the Supreme Court, probably) differ there. There is a huge difference. (and please stop calling it a tax - it’s not; my dictionary tells me a tax is a fee charged by government on a product, income, or activity… what’s our activity here, breathing?)
On another note, I appreciate your civil tone. Too bad children like Lobo et al can’t take a lesson.
I have to emphasize that our discussion has veered off into hijack territory: once we concede that HCR will be upheld by the courts, what remains is foundational constitutional theory.
Once you grant the state the power to tax, I can’t see the substantive difference.
Again, by purchasing a (nonexcludable) public good such as national defense or a public park and charging the public a tax, the government essentially engages in forced purchase. This sort of stuff touches upon core functions.
And there are libertarians who think that economic regulation is unnecessary, since reputation will handle things. I find neither position to be tenable.
…admittedly my grasp of constitutional law is purely that of the layman.
… though I’m afraid that per person taxes indeed are exactly that: I can cite discussion in the press during the Thatcher era as well as answers.com. I acknowledge that poll taxes disappeared in the US during the 1960s and have the taint of racial prejudice. One reference at answers.com says that they are explicitly permitted by the constitution (Art1, sec9), though frankly I can’t find the clause that they are referring to.
Thanks. I’ve tossed my share of broadsides though.
They claim this will happen, but I am not sure that it will. Even so, what if **Panache **dies WITH insurance because he cannot afford his medicine?
Then it will be unfortunate, especially for him, his friends and his family. Most premature deaths are a tragedy, but that shouldn’t stop us from advancing social progress. Health professionals are familiar with the risks of letting the better become the enemy of the good.
But yes, methinks it would have been better to allow the importation of drugs from Canada, though it would lower Big Pharma revenues and indirectly their vast marketing budgets and rather smaller research expenditures.
It would more closely follow that you paid for regular cable but had been watching HBO the entire time (without cost to you). In this instance they would be right in either
- asking you to retroactively pay for HBO
- Cut off your cable
In the insurance industry (all forms really), people LIE about what they have or haven’t done in order to get a cheaper price. When the cheaper price fails to cover what they think it does, outrage occurs.
Yes, there are problems with the system as it stands. Yes, I support reform in some measure but the government running it isn’t the solution.
There have been a number of decent reform measures touted by plenty of folks here and abroad. Let’s start with the least costly, least painless, least intrusive, and move forward. Common Sense really?
It might be common sense, but such an approach would be wrong. The components of health care are interlocking.
No substantiation has been given, so this appears to be an expression of the Just World Fallacy.[sup]1[/sup] Firstly, people with certain conditions simply can’t get health insurance; this isn’t a case of angling for an extra 10-15%. Second, there’s a notorious case of a woman who overlooked treatment for acne on her health care forms. When it came time for her to receive an operation for breast cancer, the insurance company practiced rescission, even after she obtained a letter from her dermatologist saying that the 2 conditions were entirely unrelated.
Interlocking parts of health care reform: See post 28.
Rescission: Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says
“[Health care insurance companies] they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.”
I’m not dismayed: it’s in the nature of the market system to drive costs down and sometimes that means denying care to those who paid for it. What we need is regulations and laws that favor transparent contracting, seriously address adverse selection and impose community rating. Both the Senate and House plans do this: they are examples of sensible legislation, though they leave more wriggle room for insurance company and Big Pharma shenanigans than I would like. Such are the results when Republican intransigence is imposed upon a deliberative body designed for a limited degree of bipartisanship.
It is unfortunate that there are but one, two or three constructive members in the entire Republican delegation. Give 'em a call.
[sup]1[/sup] h/t: Wesley Clark