US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Warren Dew]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

I'm not talking about Romneycare, which is a state level initiative. Romney has proposed a federal initiative with four major points:

1. Equalize health insurance tax treatment for individuals and small businesses so people who want to buy their own insurance don't have to pay extra.

2. Allow competition across state lines.

3. Limit punitive malpractice awards.

4. Prohibit insurance companies from refusing people with preexisting conditions if they had prior coverage.

Really strict libertarians might object to (4), but I think it would help to curb some of the abuses such as happen in California, where health insurance companies have apparently found ways to drop existing customers using the "preexisting conditions" excuse. It does mean that to be fully protected, you have to maintain continuous coverage, but the individual mandate did that too - this is basically just a voluntary individual mandate.

[Tyrannical]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

I'm not talking about Romneycare, which is a state level initiative. Romney has proposed a federal initiative with four major points:

1. Equalize health insurance tax treatment for individuals and small businesses so people who want to buy their own insurance don't have to pay extra.

2. Allow competition across state lines.

3. Limit punitive malpractice awards.

4. Prohibit insurance companies from refusing people with preexisting conditions if they had prior coverage.

Really strict libertarians might object to (4), but I think it would help to curb some of the abuses such as happen in California, where health insurance companies have apparently found ways to drop existing customers using the "preexisting conditions" excuse. It does mean that to be fully protected, you have to maintain continuous coverage, but the individual mandate did that too - this is basically just a voluntary individual mandate.

While points 1,2, and 3 seem acceptable, point four is akin to someone buying fire insurance after their house burns down. While people in the fourth category should not be ignored, they should not be able to put an undue burden on the rest of us. Certain conditions could eat up the payments of hundreds of healthy people.

[Warren Dew]

While points 1,2, and 3 seem acceptable, point four is akin to someone buying fire insurance after their house burns down. While people in the fourth category should not be ignored, they should not be able to put an undue burden on the rest of us. Certain conditions could eat up the payments of hundreds of healthy people.

Did you miss the part about "if they had prior coverage"? The idea is that if you lose your job and are no longer eligible for your employer's health insurance after the COBRA period, you can still buy some other form of health insurance.

[Ian]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

The Constitution doesn't mention anything about federalizing air traffic control or regulating the saftey of drugs, either.

[Warren Dew]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

The Constitution doesn't mention anything about federalizing air traffic control or regulating the saftey of drugs, either.

Those are justified through the interstate commerce clause. That's a more questionable justification when health care is not generally allowed to be sold across state lines.

[Ian]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

The Constitution doesn't mention anything about federalizing air traffic control or regulating the saftey of drugs, either.

Those are justified through the interstate commerce clause. That's a more questionable justification when health care is not generally allowed to be sold across state lines.

Seriously?

EDIT: What about when air traffic has nothing to do with commerce? Can government transport planes ignore FAA regulations whenever they like? Can they ignore they guys in the tower when they want to take off and land? And how do you figure health care is not generally allowed to be sold across state lines?

[Warren Dew]

EDIT: What about when air traffic has nothing to do with commerce? Can government transport planes ignore FAA regulations whenever they like? Can they ignore they guys in the tower when they want to take off and land? And how do you figure health care is not generally allowed to be sold across state lines?

Air transportation is pretty much by definition commerce. You might be able to argue that military planes are an exception, but military aircraft are obviously subject to federal regulation because the military is part of the federal government.

Health insurance is generally state regulated, so you can't generally buy a policy from a provider in a different state, since that policy will not meet your state's rules. Part of what Romney wants to do is to set things up so that you will be able to buy health care across state lines.

[maiforpeace]

Republican Efforts to Woo Hispanic Voters Stymied by Stock Photo of Asian Children on RNC Latino Outreach Site

Neetzan Zimmerman

The one unspoken rule of Hispanic outreach sites is "make sure the stock photos you use depict Hispanic people." Apparently the GOP needs that rule to be said out loud.

Elizabeth Flock over at US News and World Report noticed that the stock photo being used to top of the RNC's Latino outreach site — the aptly named RNCLatinos.com — featured children of Asian descent, and, worse still, their ethnicity was clearly labeled at the source.

Indeed, Shutterstock helpfully tagged the photo in question with keywords such as "asia," "asian," "japanese," and "thailand." Nowhere among the 50-some tags used to describe the image is there even a hint that any of the children in the photo might be Hispanic.

Soon after Flock publicized her discovery, the image was pulled and replaced with a sentence — in English. A GOP rep who spoke with TPM blamed the lapse in judgement on "an outside vendor."

[trdsf]

Well, we know that satisfaction with Medicare coverage runs higher than satisfaction with private insurance, and by a significant margin. It seems a fair assumption that overall satisfaction with one's plan would be a direct function of accessibility, level of care, and simplicity of use. So Medicare for all still sounds like a win to me.

Why wouldn't people be happy with a system where the taxpayer foots $10,000+ of health care benefits per year? Increase taxes by $10,000 a year per person to fund that for everyone, though - $40,000 per year for a family of four - and people aren't going to be so happy.

I don't think you understand how much bloat and imbalance is built in to the current system. My sister works for a large health insurer, and happened to have my uncle's claim from a major hospital stay cross her desk. The bill was for about $90,000 -- that is the amount they would have demanded of someone who didn't have insurance, or was paying out of pocket.

The amount they settled for, since there was insurance company? A little under $9,000. There's no justification for a 90% markup under any circumstances -- if they were happy with $9000 from the insurer, there's no reason they shouldn't have been equally happy with that amount from an uninsured patient. If the cost of providing care really was $90,000, then what's the justification for the markdown for the insurer?

So -- and I'm not accepting your numbers above without references, but for the sake of argument only -- we perhaps can slash those numbers above by 90%. As far as satisfaction goes, I'm not going to accept any Fox News numbers. I've received calls from Fox pollsters, and they're painfully obviously push polls.

And you're still avoiding the main questions and objections I've already posed: Is basic health care a human right, or a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it? Should private profit motives have any bearing on the amount of health care an individual can receive?

[amused]

...

I don't think you understand how much bloat and imbalance is built in to the current system. My sister works for a large health insurer, and happened to have my uncle's claim from a major hospital stay cross her desk. The bill was for about $90,000 -- that is the amount they would have demanded of someone who didn't have insurance, or was paying out of pocket.

The amount they settled for, since there was insurance company? A little under $9,000. There's no justification for a 90% markup under any circumstances -- if they were happy with $9000 from the insurer, there's no reason they shouldn't have been equally happy with that amount from an uninsured patient. If the cost of providing care really was $90,000, then what's the justification for the markdown for the insurer?

...

I've wondered about this too. One explanation is that they are playing a huge tax writeoff game where they always show huge losses because of these writedowns. I don't know if that's the case, but it would certainly explain it. The cost was really $9,000 or so, but the *price* was $90,000, resulting in a fabricated loss.

[Tyrannical]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

The Constitution doesn't mention anything about federalizing air traffic control or regulating the saftey of drugs, either.

Those are justified through the interstate commerce clause. That's a more questionable justification when health care is not generally allowed to be sold across state lines.

Seriously?

EDIT: What about when air traffic has nothing to do with commerce? Can government transport planes ignore FAA regulations whenever they like? Can they ignore they guys in the tower when they want to take off and land? And how do you figure health care is not generally allowed to be sold across state lines?

The problem is that the Feds are too quick to use the Supremacy clause to steal power from the States and completely run over the 10th Amendment.

The Federal Government is free to make non-binding suggestions outside of it's Constitutional authority that become binding rules through State Law in each State that chooses to accept it. Each State is also free to alter such suggestions as they see fit.

[Tyrannical]

Now to get back on topic......

http://www.dailypaul.com/240493/breakin ... can-revolt

In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney said hundreds more may soon follow suit. The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.

Does this imply that there are 163 "bound" delegates just in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction that wish to vote for Paul at the RNC in Tampa instead of whom they are "bound" for?
Keep in mind Romney also "won" Massachusetts' (not in 9th circuit BTW) popular vote, yet Paul supporters took most of the delegate slots.

Maybe this election isn't over yet and we are heading for a convention fight. If Mittens can't get his supporters nominated as delegates, he can't win.

[Coito ergo sum]

Romney Care, though I disagree with it was at least constitutional. There is no legal authority to Federalize health care.

The Constitution doesn't mention anything about federalizing air traffic control or regulating the saftey of drugs, either.

It doesn't even say anything about the federal government issuing visas, making people permanent residents or otherwise regulating immigration in any way, shape or form.

Creating a single payer health care authority would be as constitutional (or not) as Medicare.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, we know that satisfaction with Medicare coverage runs higher than satisfaction with private insurance, and by a significant margin. It seems a fair assumption that overall satisfaction with one's plan would be a direct function of accessibility, level of care, and simplicity of use. So Medicare for all still sounds like a win to me.

Why wouldn't people be happy with a system where the taxpayer foots $10,000+ of health care benefits per year? Increase taxes by $10,000 a year per person to fund that for everyone, though - $40,000 per year for a family of four - and people aren't going to be so happy.

I don't think you understand how much bloat and imbalance is built in to the current system.

I think everyone understands that there is the bloat. What hasn't been proposed is a solution that trims said bloat.

And you're still avoiding the main questions and objections I've already posed: Is basic health care a human right, or a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it? Should private profit motives have any bearing on the amount of health care an individual can receive?

It's not a right or a privilege. You're implicitly misdefining terms here. Having a cost or a price doesn't mean it's a privilege and not a right. For example - freedom of the press is "reserved" for those who can afford printing presses. We don't have a government program to give people the equipment they want to exercise their right. The right to bear arms is not subsidized by the government to allow people who can't afford guns to get them. The right to be "secure in one's persons, houses, papers and effects" does not mean we get state subsidized burglar alarms, and freedom of religion does not mean that the state buys us a church or copies of a holy book to use in our preachments. Yet, these things are "rights."

Basic health care, conceptually, cannot be a "right" because if it is a "right" then someone must be forced or compelled to provide that health care to the person who has the right. Obviously, the receipt of health care and the level of care is dependent on what care is available. Even in countries with "universal" healthcare system, some care is not provided. So, is the fact that some procedures will be denied going to arguably be a violation of "human rights?" Of course not.

The reality is that health care is something that is very important for people to have. It can improve quality of life, extend lives, reduce suffering, and save lives that would be lost without it. So, if a society has the means, then it should strive to adjust the legal system to foster the availability of health care. Best case scenario would be that everyone gets all the health care they need or want, whenever they want it, at zero cost. Since pretty much everyone knows that such a system, in the real world as it exists today, could never function, and in short order would result in less health care being available to fewer people. So, the argument really becomes, "what can the government do to maximize the delivery and quality of as much needed health care as possible to as many people as possible?"

[Warren Dew]

...

I don't think you understand how much bloat and imbalance is built in to the current system. My sister works for a large health insurer, and happened to have my uncle's claim from a major hospital stay cross her desk. The bill was for about $90,000 -- that is the amount they would have demanded of someone who didn't have insurance, or was paying out of pocket.

The amount they settled for, since there was insurance company? A little under $9,000. There's no justification for a 90% markup under any circumstances -- if they were happy with $9000 from the insurer, there's no reason they shouldn't have been equally happy with that amount from an uninsured patient. If the cost of providing care really was $90,000, then what's the justification for the markdown for the insurer?

...

I've wondered about this too. One explanation is that they are playing a huge tax writeoff game where they always show huge losses because of these writedowns. I don't know if that's the case, but it would certainly explain it. The cost was really $9,000 or so, but the *price* was $90,000, resulting in a fabricated loss.

That's not the case.

The $90,000 price is like a full fare plane ticket, except more so. Virtually no one pays it. That's the price they would have to charge if they had to depend on occasional walk ins to cover the entire cost of their business.

The insurers bring in a large base load of people, so they negotiate prices that reflect doctors and equipment that have a pretty full schedule, and not just occasional visits. It's the same when you get a plane fare of $300 coast to coast on a seat that would cost $1300 at full fare. Honestly, next time to make an airline reservation, check the "refundable" box, and see what the full fares are.

The $9000 price is the real price. And it's also roughly the real price reflected in the $10,000 per person per year cost of medicare that I mentioned, because medicare is reimbursed at low, government set prices, which are usually even lower than what insurance companies pay.

Some doctors have even started giving walk in patients something closer to the insurance company price if the customer pays up front, so that the doctors know they'll actually get payment.