Question for people who like the Obamacare mandate

[dogtowner]

I'm not so sure that is a minor point. It seems like a major one to me, given the urgent need to rein in health care costs.

And you're right on about state sovereignty.

yes it is a huge point that seems to be the 900lg gorilla in every discussion of the subject. its also proof positive that the left has no interest in changing the paradigm but rathe3r just look for sugardaddies. at least some on the right are talking about how to address parts of the problem.

I was thinking Gen just kind of missed the point in his post.

 

[dogtowner]

Countries with socialized medicine, for example, Spain, do have lower health care costs. Countries with universal health care, but not socialized medicine, also have lower costs. The US, in fact, has the highest costs in the world.

in prior threads this was shown to be misleading as there was an obvious subsidiZation taking place making it not really apples to apples

 

[GenSeneca]

I was thinking Gen just kind of missed the point in his post.

On Savings... You are correct, it would not lower the cost of providing HC, just help lower the cost of insurance. I have never claimed otherwise. It was PLC who offered the strawman claiming that I thought this measure would be a miracle cure for all the costs associated with HC.

A point that PLC seems to have missed but you picked up on, is that while countries with socialized medicine may spend less on HC, that doesn't mean it actually costs less in those countries. I have asked supporters of UHC and socialized medicine to explain how it reduces the cost of providing care yet they never have an answer, they just insist that it does, by magic I guess.

State sovereignty... Does the state have the power to bar you, as an individual, from purchasing products or services outside of the state in which you live? I do not believe the states have such power. You and PLC see it as the state regulating insurance companies but the state is actually regulating the liberty of the citizens of their state by telling them what they can, and cannot purchase and from whom. Substitute a different product or service in place of the insurance policy and this is clear.

Take food for example, California passes regulations that only certified organic foods may be sold in California, meaning that citizens of the state may only purchase state certified foods. Because they'd cut themselves off from 98% of the food produced in America, it wouldn't take long before the state finds itself in a food shortage and the cost of food in Claifornia skyrockets. Now I ask... Do you believe California has the authority to do this?

You may point out that it's absurd, that California would never be foolish enough to do such a thing, but that is exactly what they've done through the regulation of insurance policies.

 

[PLC1]

in prior threads this was shown to be misleading as there was an obvious subsidiZation taking place making it not really apples to apples

It was claimed to have been misleading, yes. I think the charge was that countries with universal health care, which of course includes every modern nation except the USA, are "lying" about their health care costs.

 

[dogtowner]

On Savings... You are correct, it would not lower the cost of providing HC, just help lower the cost of insurance. I have never claimed otherwise.

actually you did but I thought it might be unintentional

If you, as a resident of California, could purchase an insurance policy from another state where the regulatory requirements on insurance companies operating in that state allowed for the sale of cheaper policies than those sold in the state of California, purchasing the out of state policy would save you money on HC costs.

A point that PLC seems to have missed but you picked up on, is that while countries with socialized medicine may spend less on HC, that doesn't mean it actually costs less in those countries. I have asked supporters of UHC and socialized medicine to explain how it reduces the cost of providing care yet they never have an answer, they just insist that it does, by magic I guess.

in a by country comparison I found and posted on this board there were inexplicably large differences in the costs of specific procedures with the lowest beig impossibly low. it appears to be a matter of what aspects of cost are subsidized. that MRI machine is expensive to buy wherever it's housed.

State sovereignty... Does the state have the power to bar you, as an individual, from purchasing products or services outside of the state in which you live? I do not believe the states have such power. You and PLC see it as the state regulating insurance companies but the state is actually regulating the liberty of the citizens of their state by telling them what they can, and cannot purchase and from whom. Substitute a different product or service in place of the insurance policy and this is clear.

they can essentially have this effect with cars in Cali having to meet emmissions standards irrespective of purchase origin. lawyers have to be certified in your state, same with docs, or other medical sorts. some states require tradespeople to be card carrying while neighboring states not, similar effect. and of course insurance.

Take food for example, California passes regulations that only certified organic foods may be sold in California, meaning that citizens of the state may only purchase state certified foods. Because they'd cut themselves off from 98% of the food produced in America, it wouldn't take long before the state finds itself in a food shortage and the cost of food in Claifornia skyrockets. Now I ask... Do you believe California has the authority to do this?

You may point out that it's absurd, that California would never be foolish enough to do such a thing, but that is exactly what they've done through the regulation of insurance policies.

I believe states can and do have differing food standards. Do they have the authority ?sure asa it will fall under the umbrella of public health. right or wrong ? who knows but the public gets very pliant when stuff happens that involve avoidable problems.

 

[GenSeneca]

actually you did but I thought it might be unintentional

No, I didn't... If you, as an individual, pay less for insurance, you are saving money on your HC costs. My statement was specifically about the money an individual spends on his own HC, not what HC providers pay for the products and services necessary to provide the care.

they can essentially have this effect with cars in Cali having to meet emmissions standards irrespective of purchase origin. lawyers have to be certified in your state, same with docs, or other medical sorts. some states require tradespeople to be card carrying while neighboring states not, similar effect. and of course insurance.

Do higher regulatory standards for a good or service in a particular state have the effect of increasing the cost of that good or service within that state vs. the cost of that same good or service in another state with lower regulatory standards?

BTW, something changed on the site recently.... When I log on from work, I get a "mobile" version of the site, there are no pics, no ads, just text, but I cannot post replies. This is why it has taken so long for me to respond, I've been meaning to get around to it for a couple of days.

 

[dogtowner]

No, I didn't... If you, as an individual, pay less for insurance, you are saving money on your HC costs. My statement was specifically about the money an individual spends on his own HC, not what HC providers pay for the products and services necessary to provide the care.

but you are referring to insurance, not care. the difference state to state is mainly due to requirements of what must be covered. that does not equal care. its significant to me, at least, that nothing is being done in obamacare to address the cost of care. it makes a lie of the bill's title of affordable care act when it only makes it affordable for po folks to have taxpayers pick up the tab for their INSURANCE.

Do higher regulatory standards for a good or service in a particular state have the effect of increasing the cost of that good or service within that state vs. the cost of that same good or service in another state with lower regulatory standards?

yes. regulation aint free.

BTW, something changed on the site recently.... When I log on from work, I get a "mobile" version of the site, there are no pics, no ads, just text, but I cannot post replies. This is why it has taken so long for me to respond, I've been meaning to get around to it for a couple of days.

wierd. wonder if its a firewall thang at your place ? Walter usually posts notices of changes.