MM: Wayne how important is Health Care Reform to you and what happens here. I mean, talk about repealing the individual mandate, there is also concern about your obligatory insurance of people regardless of preexisting risk, how key is that, or can you work through the uncertainty?
WD: I believe we can work through the uncertainty. Although I will tell you, and I know you’ll appreciate this, investors want certainty, no different than we do. So the sooner we can get clarity on Health Reform the sooner we can move forward. From our perspective it is the law of the land, we’re moving forward underneath the law of the land regardless of what changes may be made, and we’ll adapt accordingly. I will say this, it is imperative though that if you’re going to allow individuals to access the market freely, that you have to have a mechanism to try to get as many healthy lives into that pool to be able to spread those costs across a wider base. So whether they go down the path of mandates, or some other mechanism to get healthy lives into the pool, we’re fully supportive of.
CM: So in terms of reform, and then having a greater pool to play with, that’s a good thing.
WD: Yes, we believe it is. From our perspective, it’s going to drive a lot of top line growth, you’re going to have over 20 million potentially uninsured Americans today that will qualify for insurance that don’t exist today, you’re going to have almost another 10-15 million that will qualify for Medicaid. The population is only going to grow.
CM: So let me ask you, net-net, in terms of greater costs versus lesser costs, I mean, when we have Health Care Reform, it’s going to be better in terms of the bottom line, isn’t it?
WD: I think ultimately for WellPoint, scale is going to matter, and if you can have scale which creates a low-cost product, you’ll be a net winner in this environment, and we think for our size, having 1 in 9 Americans today, we’ll be a net taker, and yes it will be good for us.
The health care reform legislation mandates that all Americans buy in to the plan, whether they like it or not. As Deveydt points out, this represents a huge untapped market of conscripts. These customers do not currently have insurance and many are perfectly healthy. This is important for, as Deveydt explains, it is the healthy customers who are needed to defray the substantial costs.
Not surprisingly, as Deveydt also explains, the health care industry is agnostic about exactly how the pool is expanded. Whether by mandate or by “some other mechanism,” it makes no difference to them. So long as those 20 million customers are forced to buy in, industry will be fully supportive. It’s all about scale.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThe health care reform legislation mandates that all Americans buy in to the plan, whether they like it or not.
I've always viewed government mandates as a violation of my Constitutional right to liberty. I will never buy health insurance at the point of a gun.
Of course, being true to my libertarian core, I will never seek medical attention at the expense of all of those slaves (including employers) who buy health insurance and those other slaves whose extorted taxes pay for socialist Medicare and Medicaid.
Give me liberty and I'll take sickness and death!
CH,
ReplyDelete"This is important for, as Deveydt explains, it is the healthy customers who are needed to defray the substantial costs."
Funny that you didn't mention what those "substantial costs" were. They are the costs of eliminating discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, eliminating lifetime caps on coverage, etc. In other words, it is going to be costly to provide health coverage to people with AIDS and cancer now that you can't prevent them from enrolling or kick them out when their care becomes too costly. So those costs have to be balanced, because after all the insurance industry isn't a charity. Do you have another suggestion for balancing those costs other than making healthy people get insurance? Oh, but there I go being metaphysical again asking for an alternative.
The next thing you know, those commies in Washington will be trying to force me to pay taxes to maintain roads I don't even use or to run schools when I don't even have kids.
ReplyDeleteHeaven forbid they ever try to force me to divert my hard earned income to things like those socialistic fire departments; I've never had a house fire and I never intend to!
I even hear tell of an insidious plot called 'public transportation'. The plan is to steal part of my income to help other people get around. I say if those freeloaders can't afford cars, that's their problem, not mine. Every man for himself; that's the American way!
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete===
The next thing you know, those commies in Washington will be trying to force me to pay taxes to maintain roads I don't even use or to run schools when I don't even have kids.
Heaven forbid they ever try to force me to divert my hard earned income to things like those socialistic fire departments; I've never had a house fire and I never intend to!
I even hear tell of an insidious plot called 'public transportation'. The plan is to steal part of my income to help other people get around. I say if those freeloaders can't afford cars, that's their problem, not mine. Every man for himself; that's the American way!
===
This is unfortunately the way many people think. The OP is about mandated enrollment in health care insurance and this comment presents a strawman.
Childress,
ReplyDeleteDoes a condescending reply to divert attention away from the true subject make you feel better?
CH,
ReplyDelete"The OP is about mandated enrollment in health care insurance"
So do you think insurance companies should be able to kick people with AIDS and cancer off of their policies?
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
So do you think insurance companies should be able to kick people with AIDS and cancer off of their policies?
===
No, not if the policy says they can't do that.
CH,
ReplyDelete"No, not if the policy says they can't do that."
so you sign up for a policy that allows them to kick you off if you get cancer. now you have no insurance and can't get insured bc no one will accept you as a new client. now what?
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
so you sign up for a policy that allows them to kick you off if you get cancer. now you have no insurance and can't get insured bc no one will accept you as a new client. now what?
===
Back up a bit. First, let's alert people not to buy policies that don't work when you need them. Next, as for the situation you present, that person who purchased a limited policy (hopefully it wasn't very expensive) will have to deal with the situation without the benefit of coverage, just as a person who doesn't have health coverage would.
CH,
ReplyDeleteTHat person "..will have to deal with the situation without the benefit of coverage."
Let's put that in real world terms
1) die slowly and painfully
2) rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills and not pay them, adding tremendously to everyone's health care cost.
sound about right?
CH,
ReplyDelete"First, let's alert people not to buy policies that don't work when you need them."
Person contemplating coverage who later gets cancer:
"but i'm perfectly healthy, why should I worry about being dropped if I get cancer, especially since I can't afford the coverage that won't drop me if I get cancer"
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
THat person [who purchased a policy that doesn't cover their condition] "..will have to deal with the situation without the benefit of coverage."
Let's put that in real world terms
1) die slowly and painfully
2) rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills and not pay them, adding tremendously to everyone's health care cost.
sound about right?
===
It only adds to other people's health care cost if (i) hundreds of thousands of dollars in services are rendered without first ensuring the person's ability to pay, (ii) the losses incurred by non payment are covered by raising prices and (iii) other people then purchase those higher cost services.
CH,
ReplyDelete"It only adds to other people's health care cost if (i) hundreds of thousands of dollars in services are rendered without first ensuring the person's ability to pay, (ii) the losses incurred by non payment are covered by raising prices and (iii) other people then purchase those higher cost services. "
of those, only (i) is likely to not be true in some cases. In which case, the person with cancer is out of luck and, therefore, dead. So I guess letting him die is better than raising everyone else's premiums? or does it make more sense, ethically and financially, to not let plans that drop you if you get cancer exist at all?
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
"It only adds to other people's health care cost if (i) hundreds of thousands of dollars in services are rendered without first ensuring the person's ability to pay, (ii) the losses incurred by non payment are covered by raising prices and (iii) other people then purchase those higher cost services. "
of those, only (i) is likely to not be true in some cases.
===
(ii) and (iii) are linked. Naturally, if there isn't price sensitivity, and customers will purchase higher price services, then the provider will be able to increase prices to cover other costs such as customers who fail to pay.
Ch,
ReplyDelete"(ii) and (iii) are linked. Naturally, if there isn't price sensitivity, and customers will purchase higher price services, then the provider will be able to increase prices to cover other costs such as customers who fail to pay."
so the outcome is bad whether (i) is true or not. Either a person dies or other people's costs go up. We can avoid that situation by not allowing insurers to boot customers off or discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. It's pretty hard to argue against this point, and you don't even appear to be trying to do so.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
so the outcome is bad whether (i) is true or not. Either a person dies or other people's costs go up.
===
Sure there are bad outcomes, no doubt. We have a health problem. But again, whether other people's costs go up depends on several factors, such as the three I pointed out. All three need to be true.
===
We can avoid that situation by not allowing insurers to boot customers off or discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. It's pretty hard to argue against this point, and you don't even appear to be trying to do so.
===
There's no reason why insurers cannot offer a range of products. If people don't purchase the limited plans, then those plans will go away. But customers need to be aware of what they are purchasing.
Here is the American system:
ReplyDelete1. You do not need to have health insurance.
2. If somethings happens to you and you do not have health insurance or there is no doctor around that is part of your health insurance plan then go to the emergency room and get a high cost emergency treatment there.
3. If you do not have enough money to pay for your high cost emergency room treatment then file something that makes the government pay for your high cost emergeny room treatment.
4. Fill up the emergency rooms with issues that could be treated in a normal doctors office for much less money.
This is what I was used to:
1. Everybody has health insurence and all doctors accept all health insurences.
1. If something happens to you you go to any doctor that treats those things and get a treatment.
2. Your health insurence is paying for it.
3. The high cost emergency room is only for accute life threatening situations that can't be handeled in a normal doctors office.
Cost examples:
USA: sprained ankle over 500$ emergency room costs (no doctor around that accepted my health insurance plan, was paied by the health insurence afterwards)
USA: broken ripps (check up ofr that everything is OK with my lungs) over 1000$ emergency room costs (no doctor around I just could go to who had an X-ray, health insurence paied for it afterwards)
If I would not have been in the US at that time but where I am from with the system I am used to just would have went to any normal doctor's office that has an x-ray, gotten my checkup and that would have been it for a couple 100$ a piece (payed by the health insurence)
If the US wants to keep waisting their money on health care - fine with me. It keeps making the health industry happy.
Darren said: "Does a condescending reply to divert attention away from the true subject make you feel better?"
ReplyDeleteDarren:
1. How are those things I mentioned significantly different than the healthcare bill?
2. What is your (or anyone else's) objection to the bill other than "A person shouldn't have to buy insurance if they don't want to." (I'm not saying that's not a valid objection, I'm just wondering if there are any others.)
3. How is requiring all employed people to carry health insurance different than requiring all car owners to carry auto insurance?
In Canada where I live I have had health care coverage under both systems. And believe me our government run health care is far superior. Canadians are healthier and live longer than Americans. The American system is good if you are rich enough to buy the best medical care, or if you are a corporation that profits from selling insurance. Most people are neither. Our system does the most good for the most people. The doctors used to complain and go to the states to make more money, but they ended up coming back because they are more interested in helping people than making a buck.
ReplyDelete.
CH,
ReplyDelete"Sure there are bad outcomes, no doubt. We have a health problem."
Bad outcomes like citizens dying of treatable diseases in the most prosperous county in the world. i'm glad you see we have a problem, but your "solution" seems to be to keep the status quo. i.e. people losing their insurance while deeply ill or not even being able to get it bc they were already ill, or not going to doctors bc they were afraid of being diagnosed with something that would prevent them from getting insurance. you seem to think the market will self-regulate these problems, but that is exactly what has been happening and the result is "we have a health problem."
Hello. First time posting.
ReplyDeleteI think there may be a false dichotomy being presented by the negative side here. The choice is not between the current status quo and Goverment Cares(tm) mandated health care. It is between an employer-based/free enterprise/government-managed system with artificial price and supply controls in the form of mandated health insurance and a free enterprise system. At least for now.
The current system is not free enterprise. It is an amorphous blob of a free-enterprise/employer-based/government-backed system that is only lesser in degree than what we're in the midst of replacing it with.
And honestly, I think the reason the current system, while good in many respects, fails in several others is because it's a cobbled-together mess. Having more of the same doesn't really do much to fix the underlying issues with the current system. It creates new problems while only correcting surface level symptoms of the underlying problems like some folks' financial inability OR moral irresponsibility in failing to purchase a plan that will cover for all eventualities.
I would rather the system be all government-run or free enterprise. And out of those options I'd prefer free enterprise since free markets have historically been better able to expand as the market expands and deal with rationing of a limited supply of goods like medical professionals and equipment much better than an unwieldy government bureaucracy ever could, especially one that was required to serve 300 million patients; the approximate population of the United States. In short, its scalable.
For example, Thedacare is a very successful free enterprise system that I think the entire country would benefit from. Has anyone heard of it before, and if so, what do you think?
Like Peter said,
ReplyDeleteIt’s sad for us up North to read stories about people in States selling house to pay for operation. It’s unthinkable.
Attitudes quoted bellow are shocking!
__
I will never buy health insurance at the point of a gun.
__
Every man for himself; that's the American way!
__
Eugen,
ReplyDeleteIt's just America - capitalism, making money, ME, ME, ME. This is just what they are. I know it's sad.
Well, it doesn't come for free. The high crime rates do not come out of nowhere. There are lot of people who have the choice between starving, can't get medical help, sitting on the street or earning money by taking it from others who have more than they have.
I am living in a neighborhood that frequently serves as clients/customers for those who don't know how to survive in this society without taking a job of commiting crimes. I can't blame them. Nothing even happens to them because the jails are so full that nobody knows where to put them other than dumping them back onto the street if police catches them.
Sadly but true, Americans have not realized yet that this is the first step toward a failing society. So, happy fighting against anything that would make this society more functional.
Oh, for those who are not familiar with the current American health care system: Here are some highlights.
Different hospitals and different doctors accept different health insurances. It can be that the hospital accepts your plan, but this doesn't mean that all the doctors who work in this hospital also accept your plan. So, if you have to go into a hospital that your health insurance covers, you still might end up paying some of the costs out of your own pocket if you don't be very carefull with which doctor you allow to treat you and depending on your "out of network" regulations of your health insurance.
Then, there are two rates for health care. There is the much lower rate for all those who have an insurance that the doctor/hospital accepts and there is a much higher rate for all the others.
Imagine all the hospitals and doctors would (have) to accept all health insurances and everybody would be insured. This would be disasterous.
You just have to understand their desparation. You just can't expect that they don't fight against any sort of change of the health system that might lead into this direction as good Americans (capitalism, making money, Me, Me).
Cornelius: "This is unfortunately the way many people think. The OP is about mandated enrollment in health care insurance and this comment presents a strawman."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. No one complains (as loudly, at least) about mandated enrollment in auto insurance, or the non-voluntary financial support of roads you don't use, water filtration systems you don't drink from, schools your children don't attend, parks you don't visit, hospitals you don't frequent, or thousands of other similar scenarios.
Part of living in a society like ours is that sometimes the greater good takes priority over personal preferences. As for me personally, I don't mind paying for infrastructure upkeep, it benefits me financially in the long run. Even if I didn't care about the millions of Americans who can't afford adequate healthcare, (in one of the most developed countries in the world no less) It still directly benefits me to live in a healthier society.
Now unless the mandated health insurance plan is fundamentally different than the other things I listed, I think my point stands. If it is fundamentally different, I'm all ears as to why. And 'mandated' is used loosely; no one is putting a gun to anyone's head; anyone can opt out and pay additional taxes. And I believe anyone can opt out for 'religious reasons' and not even have to pay the tax.
Eugen: "Attitudes quoted bellow are shocking!
ReplyDelete__
I will never buy health insurance at the point of a gun.
__
Every man for himself; that's the American way! "
Eugen, I was being sarcastic when I said that, I had hoped it was obvious.
But since it wasn't, I guess it undermines Cornelius's claim that it was a 'strawman' since it was easily mistaken for a genuine opinion.
nanobot7:
ReplyDelete===
Bad outcomes like citizens dying of treatable diseases in the most prosperous county in the world. i'm glad you see we have a problem, but your "solution" seems to be to keep the status quo. i.e. people losing their insurance while deeply ill or not even being able to get it bc they were already ill, or not going to doctors bc they were afraid of being diagnosed with something that would prevent them from getting insurance. you seem to think the market will self-regulate these problems, but that is exactly what has been happening and the result is "we have a health problem."
===
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that health care insurance is the solution to our health problem. I was answering your point that people have to pay more when those with inadequate coverage don't pay $100k's in hospital bills. Everyone has choices in the marketplace and no one is forced to pay higher prices if/when providers pass along the costs of unpaid bills to other customers. In fact, it is the new legislation and its enforced "scale" that will bring about what you are concerned about. Healthy "lives" are forced to purchase products they otherwise would not have purchased.
Derrick
ReplyDeleteSorry, I misunderstood.
Now I’m even more worried about Pedantski. I think he is serious.
Emil
Thanks for explanation. I had no idea it’s so complicated with doctors and hospitals accepting different insurance companies. Administration cost must be high.
Here, we just walk into any doctor office or hospital and everything is taken care of. Too simple.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism and making lots of money but every human should be provided with basic health care.
Eugen: "There is nothing wrong with capitalism and making lots of money but every human should be provided with basic health care."
ReplyDeleteWell said.
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete===
Not at all. No one complains (as loudly, at least) about mandated enrollment in auto insurance
===
Strange example since the government does not mandate auto insurance. In fact, it is probably a good example of the problem. People are not compelled to purchase auto insurance to subsidize drivers who get into accidents.
===
Now unless the mandated health insurance plan is fundamentally different than the other things I listed, I think my point stands. If it is fundamentally different, I'm all ears as to why.
===
I think you need to read the OP again. Mandated health insurance is different because it is discriminatory (and obviously unconstitutional, though it will be awhile before that becomes official).
Cornelius Hunter: "Strange example since the government does not mandate auto insurance."
ReplyDeleteIncorrect again, unless you happen to live in New Hampshire, which is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws as of June 2010. In my state, you can't even register an automobile without having liability insurance, even if you don't intend to drive it.
Cornelius Hunter: "I think you need to read the OP again. Mandated health insurance is different because it is discriminatory (and obviously unconstitutional, though it will be awhile before that becomes official)." [emphasis mine]
Gosh, if only we knew how the founding fathers felt about forcing private citizens to buy health insurance.
Oh, wait: http://is.gd/bKLq5o
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete===
Cornelius Hunter: "Strange example since the government does not mandate auto insurance."
Incorrect again
===
No Derrick, no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That would obviously be unconstitutional.
CH,
ReplyDelete"No Derrick, no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That would obviously be unconstitutional."
do you mean not federally mandated (it is mandated by states), or are you playing some word game where you mean no one (without a car) is mandated to purchase auto insurance or what? bc otherwise that statement is blatantly false.
CH,
ReplyDelete" I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that health care insurance is the solution to our health problem. I was answering your point that people have to pay more when those with inadequate coverage don't pay $100k's in hospital bills. Everyone has choices in the marketplace and no one is forced to pay higher prices if/when providers pass along the costs of unpaid bills to other customers. In fact, it is the new legislation and its enforced "scale" that will bring about what you are concerned about. Healthy "lives" are forced to purchase products they otherwise would not have purchased."
THis argument makes no sense. First, once the mandate takes effect, costs from uninsured people stiffing hospitals will go down bc, well, more people will be insured. make sense so far?
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
CH,
"No Derrick, no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That would obviously be unconstitutional."
do you mean not federally mandated (it is mandated by states), or are you playing some word game where you mean no one (without a car) is mandated to purchase auto insurance or what? bc otherwise that statement is blatantly false.
===
Word game? I'm not the one who apparently is playing word games. At the state level (or any level for that matter), no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That is not a word game. From jet planes to motorcycles, there are various requirements for the right to operate dangerous machinery which kill large numbers of people every year (training, certificates, permits, licenses, insurance, etc). The fact that Derrick erroneously thinks this is no different than the government's mandating of the purchase of health insurance, and that you think this is a word game, shows a lack of understanding.
Just to be sure I didn't miss somthing: Is the topic related to evolution, Darwin, etc.? Are topics like this going to be the new direction of this blog?
ReplyDeletesecond opinion:
ReplyDelete===
Just to be sure I didn't miss somthing: Is the topic related to evolution, Darwin, etc.?
===
I do think there is may be links, though I realize it is not intuitive and would require a lengthy treatment which I won't attempt right now.
===
Are topics like this going to be the new direction of this blog?
===
No, this is an outlier post that is exploring a topic that might be linked to evolution. For now it is food for thought, and not a new direction for this blog.
CH,
ReplyDelete"At the state level (or any level for that matter), no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. "
it took 2 seconds on google to come up with this:
http://www.dmv.state.va.us/webdoc/citizen/vehicles/insurance.asp
and here's your own state:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm
have you been breaking the law, Cornelius?
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
"At the state level (or any level for that matter), no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. "
it took 2 seconds on google to come up with this:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm
have you been breaking the law, Cornelius?
===
What was it that Eisenhower called for, an "Alert And Knowledgeable Citizenry"? Yet you and Derrick demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Insurance is required on vehicles operated on public roads.
CH,
ReplyDelete"Insurance is required on vehicles operated on public roads."
And this is different than mandated auto insurance how? i guess, techically, you don't need to have auto insurance on a really long driveway, but I think most people would agree what you describe equals mandated auto insurance.
Cornelius Hunter: "No Derrick, no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That would obviously be unconstitutional." (emphasis mine)
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Insurance is required on vehicles operated on public roads.
Wrong again.
Cornelius, this is getting bizarre. What Hunter-fied definition of 'mandated' are you using? In North Carolina, you can't even register a vehicle unless you have liability insurance. Whether or not you drive it on public roads is irrelevant. If you want a tag, you must have insurance, period. If your insurance lapses on your registered vehicle, your tag is revoked and you and pay a fine regardless of if your car is on public or private property at the time.
They're called compulsory insurance laws for a reason.
So when you say "no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance", how on earth do you defend that statement? Do you mean that no one is 'mandated' to drive a car? Well in that case, no one is 'mandated' to have a job either, so that would get them off the health insurance hook.
Or when you say "no one is mandated," do you mean it in the same sense as "no one is mandated to not rob banks; they may incur consequences if they do but they have the free will to do so."
When it comes to your anti-evolution posts, I can at least follow your arguments. One can debate the merits of required health insurance vs. required auto insurance, i.e. whether each will have a positive or negative effect on society, but to argue that auto insurance isn't required for anyone is just insane, especially after being provided with the links to the laws.
Again, saying that auto insurance is only required for people who drive is like saying health insurance is only required for people who work.
You're starting to remind me of Neal, who wouldn't concede a point if his life depended on it.
to clarify the first point I was addressing:
ReplyDeleteCH: "Yet you and Derrick demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Insurance is required on vehicles operated on public roads."
Sure, no one has to drive on public roads, just like no one has to make more than $16,000 a year.
If auto insurance isn't 'mandated', then neither is health insurance. (with one difference being that a driver can't legally opt out of liability insurance and pay a fee instead)
All this talk about "is the healthcare reform bill constitutional" takes the focus away from "is the healthcare reform bill a good idea," a conversation well worth having. It could be perfectly constitutional and still a bad Idea. I'm not completely convinced that it is the best idea; I just can't stand fallacious arguments against it.
ReplyDeleteCH: "The fact that Derrick erroneously thinks this is no different than the government's mandating of the purchase of health insurance, and that you think this is a word game, shows a lack of understanding."
I didn't say it was no different, I was responding to the (false) assertion that auto insurance isn't 'mandated' in the same sense that health insurance is 'mandated'. If anything, health insurance is less mandated than auto insurance is, because a driver can't opt out of auto insurance by paying a higher tax.
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete===
So when you say "no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance", how on earth do you defend that statement? Do you mean that no one is 'mandated' to drive a car? Well in that case, no one is 'mandated' to have a job either, so that would get them off the health insurance hook.
===
Yes, but what you seem to be failing to understand is these are different cases.
===
but to argue that auto insurance isn't required for anyone is just insane, especially after being provided with the links to the laws.
===
Insane? Is everyone also required to purchase big-rig truck insurance? Is everyone required to purchase boat insurance? Again, from jet planes to motorcycles, there are various requirements for the right to operate dangerous machinery (training, certificates, permits, licenses, insurance, etc). You seem to be laboring to avoid the obvious.
===
Again, saying that auto insurance is only required for people who drive is like saying health insurance is only required for people who work.
===
Again, you are conflating different things. Mandating the purchase of health insurance is completely different from mandating vehicle insurance. Vehicle insurance is mandated for owner / operators of high powered, dangerous machinery that can very easily injure or kill people. The insurance is a consequence of the choice to own / operate such machinery. There is nothing unconstitutional about this requirement.
===
All this talk about "is the healthcare reform bill constitutional" takes the focus away from "is the healthcare reform bill a good idea," a conversation well worth having.
===
Yes, it is clearly unconstitutional, but it is a great deal for big pharma and the health care giants like WellPoint Inc. It would be a huge wealth transfer program and boon for the big industry. As Chris pointed out, in this legislation we are *not* dealing with a government-run, national health care system. It is a more subtle, unconstitutional government manipulation that forces people to purchase certain products, and creates huge benefits for corporations.
===
I'm not completely convinced that it is the best idea; I just can't stand fallacious arguments against it.
===
Well I'm glad to hear you can't stand fallacious arguments. Unfortunately you have been using several of them.
An example of sensible (though not necessarily correct) arguments against the healthcare bill:
ReplyDelete1: It amounts to a redistribution of wealth; The insurance dues of the wealthy will go to subsidize the dues of the poor.
2: It may have the unintended consequence of raising the cost of healthcare.
3: The reason for having mandated health insurance is different than the reason for having mandated auto insurance.
An example of some illogical or irrelevant arguments against the healthcare bill:
1a: It was created by an alien from Jupiter.
2b: It requires participants to not own firearms.
3b: No one should be required to purchase health insurance because no one is required to purchase any other kind of insurance.
The three bad examples are bad because they're factually incorrect; however you've argued 3b almost a dozen times now. When you say things like:
CH: "No Derrick, no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That would obviously be unconstitutional."
...You're simply incorrect. That is an erroneous statement, through and through. That you continued to defend it is amazing.
One of your attempted 'defenses' thus far is to try to reword your argument, after the fact:
CH: "Is everyone also required to purchase big-rig truck insurance?"
The argument is not about if it is ok to mandate that everyone buy insurance, it's about if it's ok to make anyone buy it. Is everyone required to purchase big-rig truck insurance? No. Is anyone required to purchase big-rig truck insurance? YES; Those who own big-rig trucks. Is everyone required to purchase health insurance? No. Is anyone required to purchase health insurance? YES; those who 'decide' to make over around 16k a year, nor not opt-out on religious grounds.
CH: "Well I'm glad to hear you can't stand fallacious arguments. Unfortunately you have been using several of them."
Can you name one? I'm all ears.
CH,
ReplyDeleteIf you claim that you knew all along that auto insurance was mandated for drivers, I'll believe you. but you sure made it hard to see that.
Putting on your robes, you then wrote,
""Yes, it is clearly unconstitutional.."
I am not a constitutional scholar, but the fact that unconstitutionality arguments have been rejected by judges multiple times (though accepted once) suggests it's not the slam-dunk case you think it is. Perhaps Your Honor can explain why he thinks it's unconstitutional.
".. but it is a great deal for big pharma and the health care giants like WellPoint Inc. It would be a huge wealth transfer program and boon for the big industry. As Chris pointed out, in this legislation we are *not* dealing with a government-run, national health care system. It is a more subtle, unconstitutional government manipulation that forces people to purchase certain products, and creates huge benefits for corporations."
In case you didn't know, auto insurance is also not government-run and thus the mandate for drivers is a huge boon for industry giants. Why are you not concerned about that, constitutionality (or not) aside?
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete===
CH: "Well I'm glad to hear you can't stand fallacious arguments. Unfortunately you have been using several of them."
Can you name one? I'm all ears.
===
You wrote:
===
The next thing you know, those commies in Washington will be trying to force me to pay taxes to maintain roads I don't even use or to run schools when I don't even have kids.
Heaven forbid they ever try to force me to divert my hard earned income to things like those socialistic fire departments; I've never had a house fire and I never intend to!
I even hear tell of an insidious plot called 'public transportation'. The plan is to steal part of my income to help other people get around. I say if those freeloaders can't afford cars, that's their problem, not mine. Every man for himself; that's the American way!
===
And also:
===
Not at all. No one complains (as loudly, at least) about mandated enrollment in auto insurance, or the non-voluntary financial support of roads you don't use, water filtration systems you don't drink from, schools your children don't attend, parks you don't visit, hospitals you don't frequent, or thousands of other similar scenarios.
===
And then when it was explained to you that auto insurance is not relevant, you continue:
===
but to argue that auto insurance isn't required for anyone is just insane, especially after being provided with the links to the laws. [...] You're simply incorrect. That is an erroneous statement, through and through.
===
Then as a rebuttal you wrote:
===
3b: No one should be required to purchase health insurance because no one is required to purchase any other kind of insurance.
The three bad examples are bad because they're factually incorrect; however you've argued 3b almost a dozen times now.
===
No, I was responding to you. Remember, you are the one who brought up the erroneous analogy.
continued ...
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete===
One of your attempted 'defenses' thus far is to try to reword your argument, after the fact:
CH: "Is everyone also required to purchase big-rig truck insurance?"
===
Reword? After the fact? Am I not allowed to elaborate now? I made the point about jet planes earlier and it obviously didn't get through, so I tried again, and I'm guilty of rewording? And why is rewording a fallacy anyway?
===
You're starting to remind me of Neal, who wouldn't concede a point if his life depended on it.
===
Derick, autos are high-powered, dangerous machines. There are a variety of requirements that need to be met in order to have the right to operate one, including insuring that drivers have the means to compensate for damages that might result. IOW, auto insurance. If you want to operate a vehicle, you need insurance. If you don't operate a vehicle, you don't need insurance. No one is mandated to buy vehicle insurance, because no one is mandated to operate vehicles. Yes, those who choose to operate a vehicle are, as a consequence, mandated to purchase insurance. The insurance covers their driving activities. They are required to purchase the insurance *because* they are driving.
The comparison to the health insurance mandate is completely inappropriate. You argue that the health insurance mandate is not really a mandate because you don't have to choose to earn over $16k. But this is not relevant. Earning over $16k does not somehow put one at risk of making other people dangerously ill, such that health insurance would be necessary. Furthermore, even if it did the health insurance that is being forced upon us wouldn't cover those damages anyway. It only covers your own damages. And even those damages are not somehow aggravated by earning over $16k.
Derick, what you seem to fail to understand is that the $16k is simply a means test. The government realizes if they are going to force people unconstitutionally to purchase a product against their will, at least those who haven't the means are going to have to be excluded. The $16k criterion is simply a consequence of the government forcing a product to be purchased.
There is no such means test for vehicle insurance, because the insurance is needed for the activity. If you don't have the means to purchase the insurance, then you don't have the right to engage in the activity. May not sound fair, but there is nothing unconstitional about it.
===
The argument is not about if it is ok to mandate that everyone buy insurance, it's about if it's ok to make anyone buy it.
===
No, the argument is about constitutional limits.
===
Is everyone required to purchase big-rig truck insurance? No. Is anyone required to purchase big-rig truck insurance? YES; Those who own big-rig trucks.
===
OK, good.
===
Is everyone required to purchase health insurance? No. Is anyone required to purchase health insurance? YES; those who 'decide' to make over around 16k a year, nor not opt-out on religious grounds.
===
I guess reading the Constitution in Congress wasn't such a dumb idea after all.
CH,
ReplyDelete"Derick, autos are high-powered, dangerous machines. There are a variety of requirements that need to be met in order to have the right to operate one, including insuring that drivers have the means to compensate for damages that might result. IOW, auto insurance."
Certainly a sound argument. But what makes this requirement constitutional, while the mandate for health insurance is not? Please be specific, citing clauses in the Constitution that buttress your argument. Is it constitutional to force businesses to sell products to people they don't want as customers? why or why not?
Peter, a friend of mine from Saskatchewan Canada says routine procedures are backlogged and one must wait weeks or months. He says their hospitals are dirty.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
ReplyDelete"Peter, a friend of mine from Saskatchewan Canada says routine procedures are backlogged and one must wait weeks or months. He says their hospitals are dirty. "
Neal, assuming this is true (which I doubt), which is worse:
1) waiting a week for a procedure
2) not getting the procedure at all
3) going bankrupt paying for the procedure
The last two are the fates of un/underinsured people in the US. People in the US, Canada or anywhere else with money can get good, fast medical treatment. It is the people without money that we should be concerned about, isn't that right, Pastor?
Cornelius: "Derick, autos are high-powered, dangerous machines. There are a variety of requirements that need to be met in order to have the right to operate one, including insuring that drivers have the means to compensate for damages that might result. IOW, auto insurance."
ReplyDeleteI agree with nanobot74, that is a good argument. But it's a completely different argument than "mandatory insurance is unconstitutional." Mandatory insurance is not unconstitutional; there have been several instances of mandatory insurance.
Sure, the motivations for requiring the two different types of insurance are different; But that's like saying taxes to run schools are unconstitutional, and defending that statement by saying "taxes to run schools are different than other taxes; other taxes protect me by insuring safe roads and infrastructure - all that taxing me to pay for schools does is subsidize those who can't afford good education for their kids." It's a non-sequitur to say that mandatory healthcare is unconstitutional because no one else is forced to buy other types of insurance.
Again, the healthcare reform bill could be completely constitutional, yet still be a bad idea. Nonsensical arguments like "mandated insurance is unconstitutional" drown out the better arguments.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
Certainly a sound argument. But what makes this requirement constitutional, while the mandate for health insurance is not? Please be specific, citing clauses in the Constitution that buttress your argument. Is it constitutional to force businesses to sell products to people they don't want as customers? why or why not?
===
The argument that has been used by the judges who found the new mandated health insurance to be constitutional, is that congress has the power to force people to buy things by virtue of the interstate commerce clause, which grants congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce.
That argument makes no sense. Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce does not mean it has the authority to enforce purchasing.
CH,
ReplyDelete"That argument makes no sense. Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce does not mean it has the authority to enforce purchasing."
That's interesting, since the supreme court has already ruled that congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce means that it has the authority to enforce selling (i.e. the civil rights act). what's so special about purchasing vs selling?
Neal,
ReplyDelete"Peter, a friend of mine from Saskatchewan Canada says routine procedures are backlogged and one must wait weeks or months. He says their hospitals are dirty."
We do have backlogs on some procedures but it depends on the seriousness. If your condition is life threatening you will receive immediate care. Otherwise you have to take your turn. The care will be excellent, and you won't be charge a cent! The doctors get paid from our taxes like the firemen. I have never seen a dirty hospital. That would be unhygienic.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
That's interesting, since the supreme court has already ruled that congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce means that it has the authority to enforce selling (i.e. the civil rights act). what's so special about purchasing vs selling?
===
These are completely different cases. In one case congress is telling people who sell products that they cannot deny purchases to customers based on race, creed or color. In the new legislation, congress is telling people who are doing nothing that they now must purchase a product.
CH,
ReplyDelete"These are completely different cases. In one case congress is telling people who sell products that they cannot deny purchases to customers based on race, creed or color. In the new legislation, congress is telling people who are doing nothing that they now must purchase a product. "
Except that people who are "doing nothing" are not. They are utilizing health care, and their decisions about whether to be responsible and buy health insurance or rack up huge debts at emergency rooms significantly affects everyone else. the decision to not purchase health care is a form of economic activity that affects interstate commerce and thus falls under the commerce clause and hence can be regulated by congress. arguments similar to the one you are using now were used (unsuccessfully) against the civil rights act, social security, medicare, etc. in fact, the argument that health care affects interstate commerce is much stronger than that for the civil rights act.
Health care must deal with health first. Making everyone buy health insurance puts the emphasis on the care part.
ReplyDeleteThat is doomed to fail. But we cannot mandate what people eat and what teir over-all lifestyle will be. So we make everyone pay because the people who live unhealthy lifestyles- of their own choosing- can't get health insurance unless the gooberment steps in and makes it so- that is makes it so that insurance companies have to provide the coverage.
The only regulation that was required is to make sure insurnace companies do not (ie cannot) drop someone who has been a loyal customer just because said customer got really, really sick.
But if you never had insurance, got really, really sick and then tried to buy into the program, then you are just out of luck because you were out of touch. Geez if everyone waited until they needed insurance to get insurance there wouldn't be any insurance companies around.
As for Canada- I have heard many horror stories about their health care- one came from my brother-in-law whose mother was really, really sick. In the end they basically terminated her life. But at least they let the family see her one more time.
ReplyDeletenanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
Except that people who are "doing nothing" are not. They are utilizing health care, and their decisions about whether to be responsible and buy health insurance or rack up huge debts at emergency rooms significantly affects everyone else.
===
No, you're back to your failed ER argument. You cannot penalize a person for an act not committed. That is unconstitutional. By the way, you're also missing the point of the new legislation. ER missed payments by the non insured is not the driver. Nor, even, is the frequency of scheduled visits to health care providers. The primary driver is skyrocketing costs for scheduled visits. To offset these costs they need more revenue. It is that simple. Read the OP.
===
the decision to not purchase health care is a form of economic activity that affects interstate commerce and thus falls under the commerce clause and hence can be regulated by congress.
===
As is your decision not to purchase my lollipops.
===
arguments similar to the one you are using now were used (unsuccessfully) against the civil rights act, social security, medicare, etc. in fact, the argument that health care affects interstate commerce is much stronger than that for the civil rights act.
===
No, the argument that you cannot force people to buy something is not similar to the argument that you cannot force people to sell their wares indiscriminantly. One of the parallels that seems to exist between health care reform and evolution is the use of flawed logic and misrepresentations.
Derick Childress:
ReplyDeleteFirst the evolutionist explains:
===
No one complains (as loudly, at least) about mandated enrollment in auto insurance ... They're called compulsory insurance laws for a reason.
===
Then, after seeing the argument makes no sense, the evolutionist follows with this:
===
It's a non-sequitur to say that mandatory healthcare is unconstitutional because no one else is forced to buy other types of insurance.
===
But who said that. I merely responded to the fallacious argument that auto insurance justifies mandates health insurance.
CH,
ReplyDelete"No, you're back to your failed ER argument."
my failed ER argument? please have a look at the data sometime. unpaid emergency room visits are one of the biggest drains (and hence causes of increased costs) on health care. and the majority of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health care expenses, meaning even more unpaid bills.
"You cannot penalize a person for an act not committed."
Tell that to Wesley Snipes as he sits in jail for not paying taxes. So you can't penalize someone for not reporting for military duty when drafted? for not paying into social security? give me a break
"The primary driver is skyrocketing costs for scheduled visits."
No, the primary driver is the new legislation banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions. without the new mandate, people could wait until they are sick before enrolling, meaning all losses for health insurance.
"the decision to not purchase health care is a form of economic activity that affects interstate commerce and thus falls under the commerce clause and hence can be regulated by congress.
===
As is your decision not to purchase my lollipops."
the problem with slippery slope arguments (particularly snidely presented ones) is that they are bogus and that the people who use them know they are bogus. mandating health insurance is one potential (not the best, in my opinion, as i prefer a single payer option) solution to a ridiculous health care problem in this country. if lollipops caused us to spend the most money in the world on health care per capita but have 50% higher infant mortality rate and a mean life expectancy 3 years lower than Australia we might consider regulating them too.
"No, the argument that you cannot force people to buy something is not similar to the argument that you cannot force people to sell their wares indiscriminantly."
it is when you look at the constitutional justification for them (which you should do, as you are making an explicit claim that the mandate is unconstitutional). both are based on the commerce clause, which gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. the portion of the civil rights act we are discussing was justified by the commerce clause because the products sold at stores came from multiple states. a pretty weak argument, actually. but we needed to end racial discrimination. now we need to end discrimination in insurance, and the interstate commerce argument is much stronger bc health care is fluid among all states.
CH,
ReplyDelete""No, the argument that you cannot force people to buy something is not similar to the argument that you cannot force people to sell their wares indiscriminantly."
Again, you're ignoring the actual arguments people made, which are that the civil rights act, social security, etc. were overreaches of congressional power. i.e. the same argument you are making. 20 years from now we'll look back at this failed argument the same way we look back at the others. although we won't laugh as hard as we do when looking at the response to your arguments on biology textbooks in California, e.g. that you have ".. a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science."
Well it looks like the USSC will be hearing the case this year. There has already been judges ruling it is unconstitutional...
ReplyDeletenanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
"You cannot penalize a person for an act not committed."
Tell that to Wesley Snipes as he sits in jail for not paying taxes. So you can't penalize someone for not reporting for military duty when drafted? for not paying into social security? give me a break
===
No, you misread. My point was that you cannot penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future, but they haven't actually done. The case in point, to which I was referring, was your costly ER visit and subsequent failure to pay the bill.
===
"The primary driver is skyrocketing costs for scheduled visits."
No, the primary driver is the new legislation banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions. without the new mandate, people could wait until they are sick before enrolling, meaning all losses for health insurance.
===
Yes, with the new legislation that becomes a problem.
=========================
"the decision to not purchase health care is a form of economic activity that affects interstate commerce and thus falls under the commerce clause and hence can be regulated by congress.
===
As is your decision not to purchase my lollipops."
the problem with slippery slope arguments (particularly snidely presented ones) is that they are bogus and that the people who use them know they are bogus.
=========================
Except that it is not a slippery slope argument. There is no slippery slope here. Your argument, that the decision to not purchase health care is a form of economic activity that affects interstate commerce, literally is true of a wide range of markets, including lollipops. To think the Commerce Clause gives the government the authority to enforce purchasing is simply absurd.
===
mandating health insurance is one potential (not the best, in my opinion, as i prefer a single payer option) solution to a ridiculous health care problem in this country.
===
Yes, but since it entails violating the constitution, so it is unacceptable.
===
now we need to end discrimination in insurance,
===
No, in addition to violating the constitution, you are not ending discrimination, you are introducing discrimination in this wealth transfer legislation.
===
Again, you're ignoring the actual arguments people made, which are that the civil rights act, social security, etc. were overreaches of congressional power. i.e. the same argument you are making. 20 years from now we'll look back at this failed argument the same way we look back at the others. although we won't laugh as hard as we do when looking at the response to your arguments on biology textbooks in California, e.g. that you have ".. a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science."
===
No, these are different cases. In fact, it is fallacious to think that since some folks a long time ago erroneously warned of government overreach, therefore all such warnings from now on are false. In fact it sounds kind of like a slippery slope argument (maybe even a snidely presented one).
Joe G:
ReplyDelete===
Well it looks like the USSC will be hearing the case this year. There has already been judges ruling it is unconstitutional...
===
Yes, but in amazing cases of judicial incompetence, two judges ruled it is *constitutional*.
Cornelius Hunter: "You cannot penalize a person for an act not committed."
ReplyDeletenanobot74: Tell that to Wesley Snipes as he sits in jail for not paying taxes. So you can't penalize someone for not reporting for military duty when drafted? for not paying into social security? give me a break
Cornelius Hunter: No, you misread. My point was that you cannot penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future, but they haven't actually done. The case in point, to which I was referring, was your costly ER visit and subsequent failure to pay the bill.
===========================
You can't penalize someone for something *you think* they will do in the future? And by 'penalize' you mean 'require to purchase insurance'? So you can't require, say, a driver to purchase liability insurance because *you think* they *may* cause an accident in the future? Odd. I wonder why the government does it then? Cornelius, perhaps you need to send some letters to your congressman, informing them that they have no earthly idea if you're ever going to be involved in an accident, and that they 'cannot penalize you for something *they think* you will do in the future but haven't actually done' by mandating that you purchase insurance. (case in point, your potential costly intersection collision and subsequent failure to pay the medical and repair bills of those injured)
Does that also mean that 'conspiracy to commit murder' is not, in fact, a crime that can be punished? Who knew? Or that 'intent to commit burglary' is not actually a felony in some places?
Cornelius, stick to biology; you don't seem to know anything about law.
Derick Childress:
ReplyDelete======
Me: "It's a non-sequitur to say that mandatory healthcare is unconstitutional because no one else is forced to buy other types of insurance."
Cornelius Hunter: "But who said that. I merely responded to the fallacious argument that auto insurance justifies mandates health insurance."
uhhhh.... you did:
Cornelius Hunter: No Derrick, no one is mandated to purchase auto insurance. That would obviously be unconstitutional.
If you weren't saying "mandating that people purchase insurance would obviously be unconstitutional" there, what were you saying?
======
But saying that doesn't make me guilty of your non-sequitur.
Perhaps seat belt laws are examples of imposing penalties for acts not committed. Presumably seat belt laws are considered desirable for the good of society. They are on the books in many US states and have not been found to violate the federal constitution. Would a federal law imposing penalties for failure to use seat belts be unconstitutional?
ReplyDeleteOr does the failure to perform an act like buying health insurance fall into a different category, involving commerce and economics? The Massachusetts health law has been mandating tax penalties in a manner similar to the new federal law (ACA). Those penalties and the manner of their collection have been challenged in court and those challenges have failed.
Apparently the Massachusetts law is constitutional. Why should a federal law with similar provisions be deemed unconstitutional? States rights redux? (See Mitt Romney's recent wiggles around that issue.)
CH,
ReplyDelete"No, you misread. My point was that you cannot penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future, but they haven't actually done. The case in point, to which I was referring, was your costly ER visit and subsequent failure to pay the bill."
then social security is unconstitutional? how about medicare? after all, you never know if you will actually be, for example, disabled.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
then social security is unconstitutional? how about medicare? after all, you never know if you will actually be, for example, disabled.
===
But congress has the authority to raise taxes.
CH,
ReplyDelete"But congress has the authority to raise taxes."
So you agree that the govt can, in fact, "..penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future"?
CH,
ReplyDelete"No, the primary driver is the new legislation banning discrimination against pre-existing conditions. without the new mandate, people could wait until they are sick before enrolling, meaning all losses for health insurance.
===
Yes, with the new legislation that becomes a problem."
So should we continue to allow insurance companies to refuse to insure people with pre-existing conditions?
"Your argument, that the decision to not purchase health care is a form of economic activity that affects interstate commerce, literally is true of a wide range of markets, including lollipops."
Of course it's true. and those markets could be regulated (including enforced purchasing) if it was necessary and proper to do so. fortunately, our system of government (and the fact theat lollipops don't make up a huge chunk of our economy) makes it very unlikely that laws mandating purchase of lollipops would be passed.
" To think the Commerce Clause gives the government the authority to enforce purchasing is simply absurd."
bc you said so? the courts are evenly divided on it, so at the least it's not as absurd as you think.
"now we need to end discrimination in insurance,
===
No, in addition to violating the constitution, you are not ending discrimination, you are introducing discrimination in this wealth transfer legislation."
so discriminating against rich people by making them pay a bit more is as bad as discriminating against people with cancer? nice.
"In fact, it is fallacious to think that since some folks a long time ago erroneously warned of government overreach, therefore all such warnings from now on are false."
i'm just saying that history isn't in your favor. but, of course, you're an anti-evolutionist, so you're used to that.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
Of course it's true. and those markets could be regulated (including enforced purchasing) if it was necessary and proper to do so.
===
No, it doesn't include enforced purchasing. That's absurd.
nanobot74:
ReplyDelete===
bc you said so? the courts are evenly divided on it, so at the least it's not as absurd as you think.
===
The fact that judges have decided that government enforced purchasing is constitutional is a sign of judicial incompetence, not that there is a legitimate case for it. Judges also decided that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom, and a whole host of other outrageous decisions.
CH,
ReplyDelete"No, it doesn't include enforced purchasing. That's absurd. "
and
"The fact that judges have decided that government enforced purchasing is constitutional is a sign of judicial incompetence, not that there is a legitimate case for it. Judges also decided that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom, and a whole host of other outrageous decisions. "
So, to summarize your arguments: the mandate is unconstitutional because I said so, and anyone who disagrees with me, including federal judges and Harvard law professors, is incompetent. care to add anything more substantial?
but, i'm curious, do you still think it's unconstitutional for the govt to "..penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future"?
nanobot74:
ReplyDeleteWhat you seem to be missing is that unlike in some other countries, the government cannot simply do whatever it wants. It has certain rights granted to it, and this is not one of them. It cannot simply decide that, gee, all Americans must, for perpetuity, shovel money to the big health insurance corporations. It is obviously unconstitutional and yet politicians simply voted themselves this power. I realize the system is taking the proper steps in correcting this usurpation of power, but how could our elected representatives have taken this step in the first place?
I see two links to evolution here. First, evolution tells us that life happens by chance. The world just happened to arise, and millions and millions of species, with all manner of fantastic designs, just happened to spontaneously arise. Life is a crap shoot, and so is our health. Sure we learned in some high school health class that there are correlations with lifestyle, but foremost in our thinking is that sickness and disease are happenstance. The professionals know diet, exercise and exposure play major roles, but the average American's mindset (and our public policies) hold this as more of an afterthought. The main thing is, it is just dumb luck if you're healthy, and bad luck if you're sick.
So incredibly you have this new legislation pooling people with smokers, drinkers, junk food consumers, and sedentary people (unfortunately that's a sizable chunk of Americans), and mandating this pooling even though the risks vary by orders of magnitude.
If the government was genuinely interested in Americans' health, and was willing to risk violating the constitution to get the improvements they wanted, then there are all kinds of obvious steps they could take (such as controlling junk food supplies, tobacco, etc). It is not controversial that relatively minor lifestyle improvements would send health care costs significantly lower.
My point is not to advocate the government take such steps, but simply that the mandated enrollment is the flawed outcome of the influence of evolutionary thinking coupled with profit motive.
Second, the notion that the government can mandate that you make a purchase in the marketplace through no action or fault of your own, is clearly motivated by the desire for the transaction to be made. In other words, the argument that mandated purchasing is constitutional is not made because there is some obvious truth to it (it obviously is not true), but rather because these people want even more funding for the system. There is a desired outcome, and in order to achieve that desired outcome they make up whatever arguments are needed.
Likewise in evolutionary thought, the cultural mandate for a strictly naturalistic origins story is and always has been the requirement. Evolution, one way or another, is what theists have mandated for centuries. And so science was and is used as the justification. Just as the health care reform legislation must be constitutional, so too evolution must be a scientific fact.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThe professionals know diet, exercise and exposure play major roles, but the average American's mindset (and our public policies) hold this as more of an afterthought. The main thing is, it is just dumb luck if you're healthy, and bad luck if you're sick.
A gross oversimplification. The amount of control individuals, medical science, and government policies have over health is limited. Lifestyle can mitigate but does not prevent consequences of accident, environment, infection, genetic variation, aging and a host of other variables that affect health.
Many persons ask their doctors, "Why do I have cancer (hypertension, autoimmune disease, osteoarthritis, etc.) when I've followed all of your advice and led a clean lifestyle?" Doctors advise: "Bad things happen to good people."
It is not controversial that relatively minor lifestyle improvements would send health care costs significantly lower.
But every citizen is still at risk sometime or other of needing medical care that someone will have to pay for.
In our society there is NO FREE LUNCH.
Pedant:
ReplyDelete======
Hunter:
"Sure we learned in some high school health class that there are correlations with lifestyle, but foremost in our thinking is that sickness and disease are happenstance. The professionals know diet, exercise and exposure play major roles, but the average American's mindset (and our public policies) hold this as more of an afterthought. The main thing is, it is just dumb luck if you're healthy, and bad luck if you're sick."
A gross oversimplification. [...] Many persons ask their doctors, "Why do I have cancer (hypertension, autoimmune disease, osteoarthritis, etc.) when I've followed all of your advice and led a clean lifestyle?" Doctors advise: "Bad things happen to good people."
======
Thank you for making my point with such clarity. You disagree and then prove my point.
======
Hunter:
"It is not controversial that relatively minor lifestyle improvements would send health care costs significantly lower."
But every citizen is still at risk sometime or other of needing medical care that someone will have to pay for.
In our society there is NO FREE LUNCH.
======
No one said there is. Of course there is no NFL. This is a good example of how evolutionists mis read when confronted with their own thinking.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThank you for making my point with such clarity. You disagree and then prove my point.
...
This is a good example of how evolutionists mis read when confronted with their own thinking.
I'd rather agree than disagree, but what was your point, again?
Pedant:
ReplyDelete"but what was your point, again? "
That there is a link between evolutionary thinking and our attitudes about health and health care. Specifically, evolutionary thinking appeals to chance events. There is no particular reason for anything -- the world just happened to arise through a set of unrelated circumstances. Those veering atoms were at it again.
Likewise, though the science and statistics (and common sense) indicate otherwise, our atitude about health is that it is a game of chance. Bad things (disease) can happen to good (healthy) people.
Yes, accidents do happen, and people with healthy diets and habits do fall ill all the time. But significant fractions of our health care go to servicing problems that very much are attributable to choices we make.
The point is not that we can guarantee perfect health, deny the aging process, and so forth. This is not a black/white problem.
But it is foolish to go to the other extreme, and overlook our unhealthy choices which undeniably have significant health effects, and drive costs.
Our health care costs, in no small measure, go toward servicing our sedentary lifestyle, voracious appetite for junk food, alcohol, smoking, indoor pollutents, and so forth.
Of course those are choices people are free to make. But let's not fool ourselves and think such choices are of little consequence and that, therefore, all Americans are, to first order, in similar risk categories.
The pooling of people with widely different risk factors, into the same category, forces low-risk people to subsidize the foolish choices of high-risk people. And in protecting people from the monetary impact of their choices, it further encourages ignorant behavior.
Cornelius:
ReplyDelete"The pooling of people with widely different risk factors, into the same category, forces low-risk people to subsidize the foolish choices of high-risk people. And in protecting people from the monetary impact of their choices, it further encourages ignorant behavior."
Then I guess you disagree with the old adage that it is better to let ten guilty persons go free than wrongfully convict one innocent person.
Because that is what your statement implies. People with a healthy lifestyle, but too poor to afford health insurance, and who get sick anyway, are just collateral damage.
Ironic how antievolutionists are often the most fanatic social Darwinists.
Dr Hunter,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying your point. You said:
But it is foolish to go to the other extreme, and overlook our unhealthy choices which undeniably have significant health effects, and drive costs.
I don't think I overlooked that in my comment at 7:23 AM.
My aim was to point out that regardless of what is driving costs, people need medical care for a variety of reasons, and somebody has to pay for that. Even if life-style adjustment could in time eliminate 75% of chronic diseases, which are the biggest piece of the health cost pie, people will still get ill and women will persist in having babies.
How do you propose to deal with the payment problem as we work toward better disease prevention?
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteThe pooling of people with widely different risk factors, into the same category, forces low-risk people to subsidize the foolish choices of high-risk people. And in protecting people from the monetary impact of their choices, it further encourages ignorant behavior.
You seem to be assuming that all people at high risk for illness are in that category because of life-style choices AND that insurers have the ability to evaluate those factors. One of the main measures of health care underwriting risk is pre-existing conditions.
Insurers can easily weed out those unfortunates. God forbid we should have a system that subsidizes people so foolish as to have chosen to get cancer or multiple sclerosis.
I see that nanobot74 has raised the issue of pre-existing conditions several times before in this thread. What I don't see is a constructive response to this issue from the other side.
ReplyDeletetroy:
ReplyDelete===
Because that is what your statement implies. People with a healthy lifestyle, but too poor to afford health insurance, and who get sick anyway, are just collateral damage.
===
Not at all. There are plenty of ways to reckon with health care without violating the constitution.
===
Ironic how antievolutionists are often the most fanatic social Darwinists.
===
Fanatic? You're violating the constitution and when I point it out *I'm* the one who is the fanatic?
Pedant:
ReplyDelete===
How do you propose to deal with the payment problem as we work toward better disease prevention? [...]
I see that nanobot74 has raised the issue of pre-existing conditions several times before in this thread. What I don't see is a constructive response to this issue from the other side.
===
Well there is no dearth of legal strategies for dealing with health care costs. For instance, you could easily deal with the issues you raise with a government run, national health care system. I don't have any ingenious ideas that aren't already out there, but let's not start violating people's rights.
CH: Specifically, evolutionary thinking appeals to chance events. There is no particular reason for anything -- the world just happened to arise through a set of unrelated circumstances. Those veering atoms were at it again.
ReplyDeleteIs this really your position or is this some sort of parody? At this point, I really can't tell.
Evolutionary theory suggests the biological complexity we observe was, and continues to be, the result of a number of complex, inter-related events.
If the biological complexity we observe was the result of unrelated events, this would be magic. As such, this appears to be yet another example of equivocation on your part.
CH: Likewise, though the science and statistics (and common sense) indicate otherwise, our atitude about health is that it is a game of chance. Bad things (disease) can happen to good (healthy) people.
So, if not science, then where might these people get this idea?
It's not science that suggests an intelligent designer can retroactively and proactively intercede our behalf in the case of age, disease and bodily harm, but does so only when it suits his mysterious plan.
It's not science that suggests the variations between species, the specifics of which have significant effect on aging, etc., represent the intentional will of a super intelligent, designer designer.
For example, the Axolioti salamander can regrow skin, bones, organs and even it's spinal cord and brain. The Aldabra Giant Tortoise is one of a few negligibly senescent animals that do not exhibit measurable reductions in capability or functional decline with age, and can live up to 255 years. Some species can synthesize ascorbic acid, while others cannot.
However, if we take the claim that the biological complexity was actually designed seriously, in that all explanations must conform to it, in reality, then how do we explain the fact that we, as human beings, lack these feature as well?
Perhaps all life was deigned by an incompetent designer, which means we're lucky to live as long as well do.
However, this seems unlikely as these features supposedly represent a search though 10^300 possible sequences for the exact proteins necessary to express them. Regardless, the substantial number of age related health issues we experience would be by design. This includes our decreasing ability fight off decease, repair DNA damage, remove toxins from our cells, etc.
Furthermore, it's supposedly impossible for us to naturally evolve new beneficial features. Unless we can prevent or repair them, mutations can only make things worse. However, as intelligent design proponent such as yourself, keep claiming as part of your anti-evolution argument…
-- continued --
ReplyDeleteFinding the right gene sequence to get a particular job done in the cell would make finding a needle in a haystack seem easy. The problem is so difficult that we haven’t yet figured out the answer, but it would be a 1 in 10^100++ long shot. Do not try this at home.
If this is true, then apparently we can't do much of anything about it anyway. Right?
The point is not that we can guarantee perfect health, deny the aging process, and so forth. This is not a black/white problem.
It would seem we are designed to have imperfect heath, age and so forth, as biological complexity falls outside a boundary where human reason supposedly has no access. Nor would these actually represent problems to be solved if they represent the will of the designer.
But it is foolish to go to the other extreme, and overlook our unhealthy choices which undeniably have significant health effects, and drive costs.
We can make eat better, exercise more, etc. However, these actions merely represent an instrumentalist approach. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking anything we learn or discover could be of great consequence in the grand scheme of biological complexity.
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteWell there is no dearth of legal strategies for dealing with health care costs. For instance, you could easily deal with the issues you raise with a government run, national health care system.
Agreed!
CH,
ReplyDelete"It is obviously unconstitutional and yet politicians simply voted themselves this power. "
so this remains your only argument. "It is obviously unconstitutional bc I said so. the only reason it is not obvious to hundreds of members of congress, and numerous federal judges, constitutional scholars and law professors is bc they are incompetent." i guess that's the mindset needed to be an anti-evolutionist, but it isn't convincing in any objective sense.
and you still haven't answered my question: do you still think it's unconstitutional for the govt to "..penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future"? You were the one making this absurd argument. why is it absurd? not bc I said so, but bc it is contradicted by facts, i.e. that social security and medicaid do exactly what you say the gov't can't do.
so there you have it. you make objectively absurd arguments that contradict known facts. then you accuse others with much greater expertise than you of making absurd arguments, with no justification.more or less mirrors all your other posts.
CH,
ReplyDelete"The pooling of people with widely different risk factors, into the same category, forces low-risk people to subsidize the foolish choices of high-risk people.. "
another absurd argument contradicted by the data. the situation you describe is exactly what we have today; low-risk and high-risk people on the same plans. so how would adding currently uninsured people change this situation? while the data are hard to get, it seems that those who are currently uninsured are largely a mix of people who feel (and may genuinely be)that they are low risk (esp. young males), people with pre-existing conditions (obviously "high risk"), and poor people (mix of high- and low-risk). so on balance it doesn't seem like adding these people to the health care rolls will make low-risk people subsidize high-risk people more than they currently do. perhaps you could explain why you think it would?
"And in protecting people from the monetary impact of their choices, it further encourages ignorant behavior"
so you think, now that they are insured, more people will become chain smoking couch potatoes? that's a pretty difficult argument to back up, considering that the US populace is much more sedentary than any of the countries with absolutely free health care for everyone.
CH,
ReplyDeletere: your argument about a relationship between evolution and unhealthy lifestyle choices. if that was true, we would expect to see a positive relationship between acceptance of evolution and unhealthiness. just eyeballing it, without doing any formal statistical tests (since those are metaphysical according to you) we can see that this relationship doesn't hold whether between countries (e.g. Scandinavian countries with high acceptance of evolution and high health vs US with low acceptance and low health) or within the US (the most unhealthy states in the US, e.g. MS, AL also have the lowest acceptance of evolution while the healthiest states, e.g. California also have high acceptance). granted, these are just correlational and there are lots of other differences between the countries/states, but with those caveats the data don't support your argument/hypothesis.
nano:
ReplyDelete===
so this remains your only argument. "It is obviously unconstitutional bc I said so. the only reason it is not obvious to hundreds of members of congress, and numerous federal judges, constitutional scholars and law professors is bc they are incompetent." i guess that's the mindset needed to be an anti-evolutionist, but it isn't convincing in any objective sense.
===
So the government can mandate the purchase of guns?
===
and you still haven't answered my question: do you still think it's unconstitutional for the govt to "..penalize a person for something *you think* they will do in the future"? You were the one making this absurd argument. why is it absurd? not bc I said so, but bc it is contradicted by facts, i.e. that social security and medicaid do exactly what you say the gov't can't do.
===
Social security and medicaid are not relevant, as I already explained. You asserted that we should mandate purchase of health insurance because (A) a person might get into an accident, (B) he then will probably go to the ER, (C) where he might rack up huge costs, and (D) he might fail to pay the bills. My point was simply that you cannot mandate someone purchase health insurance because, who knows, someday he might fail to pay an ER bill.
nano:
ReplyDelete===
without doing any formal statistical tests (since those are metaphysical according to you)
===
No, formal statistical tests that entail non scientific assumptions are metaphysical.
CH,
ReplyDelete"Social security and medicaid are not relevant, as I already explained. "
You said that they were not relevant bc they are taxes. this has nothing to do with whether or not they are penalties (which was your argument).
"My point was simply that you cannot mandate someone purchase health insurance because, who knows, someday he might fail to pay an ER bill. "
that is exactly one of the arguments used to justify the mandated insurance plans of social security and medicaid, e.g. you might get sick and not pay a hospital bill or you might die and leave your widow penniless. you are being penalized (through a tax) for something they *think* you will do in the future.
CH,
ReplyDelete"So the government can mandate the purchase of guns?"
In fact, the gov't did do that under George Washington:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm