News:

Welcome to week4paug.net 2.1 - same as it ever was! Most features have been restored, but please keep us posted on ANY issues you may be having HERE:  https://week4paug.net/index.php/topic,23937

Main Menu

Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

Started by sophist, August 06, 2009, 09:48:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

VDB

I'm not a big fan of the mandate, on principle, so I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it struck down. As I understand it, the government's justification of this is based upon the interstate commerce clause, correct? There's something that has been invoked to no end in justifying all sorts of creeping federal gov't influence. I'd sure love to see it rolled back, but a part of me would think that finally doing so now, for the sake of checking ObamaCare, would be just as much a political statement by the court's conservatives as it would be an expression of their allegiance to the strict letter of the constitution.
Is this still Wombat?

runawayjimbo

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 14, 2011, 12:00:01 PM
I'm not a big fan of the mandate, on principle, so I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it struck down. As I understand it, the government's justification of this is based upon the interstate commerce clause, correct? There's something that has been invoked to no end in justifying all sorts of creeping federal gov't influence. I'd sure love to see it rolled back, but a part of me would think that finally doing so now, for the sake of checking ObamaCare, would be just as much a political statement by the court's conservatives as it would be an expression of their allegiance to the strict letter of the constitution.

Yes, the defense of the mandate (that Obama ridiculed Hillary for during the primary) revolves around the fact that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and that, since the decision to either buy or forego health insurance is an economic one, it can be legislated. The expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause, along with the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be/have been used to legally justify pretty much anything Congress wants to do. But, setting aside personal feelings about the ACA, are people really comfortable with granting that kind of all encompassing power to a bunch of clowns who everyone admits have no clue what the hell they are doing? If the precedent is set that Congress can force every citizen to buy a product from a private for-profit company, where does that stop? Like you, I am just not comfortable with that kind of unrestrained gov't.

The practical reason why the administration needs the mandate is because it is the only way to appease the insurance companies. You cannot have the pre-existing condition ban and guaranteed issue (i.e., no one can be rejected for coverage for any reason) without the mandate. But give the health insurance industry access to 50M captive new customers and it suddenly becomes a lot more palatable.

But here's what I don't understand about your response, VB: you admit the mandate blows and that you believe there should be some limits on Congress' power, but then you question the motives of the conservative bloc. If you think you the mandate should be struck down, why does it matter how it comes to pass? Don't get me wrong, I'll take no great pleasure in watching the self-righteous GOP dooshes whacking each other off, but in the end I'll be able to celebrate a win for liberty while chastising the dildos doing drive-by moonings of the White House.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

VDB

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 14, 2011, 04:26:34 PM
Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 14, 2011, 12:00:01 PM
I'm not a big fan of the mandate, on principle, so I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it struck down. As I understand it, the government's justification of this is based upon the interstate commerce clause, correct? There's something that has been invoked to no end in justifying all sorts of creeping federal gov't influence. I'd sure love to see it rolled back, but a part of me would think that finally doing so now, for the sake of checking ObamaCare, would be just as much a political statement by the court's conservatives as it would be an expression of their allegiance to the strict letter of the constitution.

Yes, the defense of the mandate (that Obama ridiculed Hillary for during the primary) revolves around the fact that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and that, since the decision to either buy or forego health insurance is an economic one, it can be legislated. The expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause, along with the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be/have been used to legally justify pretty much anything Congress wants to do. But, setting aside personal feelings about the ACA, are people really comfortable with granting that kind of all encompassing power to a bunch of clowns who everyone admits have no clue what the hell they are doing? If the precedent is set that Congress can force every citizen to buy a product from a private for-profit company, where does that stop? Like you, I am just not comfortable with that kind of unrestrained gov't.

The practical reason why the administration needs the mandate is because it is the only way to appease the insurance companies. You cannot have the pre-existing condition ban and guaranteed issue (i.e., no one can be rejected for coverage for any reason) without the mandate. But give the health insurance industry access to 50M captive new customers and it suddenly becomes a lot more palatable.

But here's what I don't understand about your response, VB: you admit the mandate blows and that you believe there should be some limits on Congress' power, but then you question the motives of the conservative bloc. If you think you the mandate should be struck down, why does it matter how it comes to pass? Don't get me wrong, I'll take no great pleasure in watching the self-righteous GOP dooshes whacking each other off, but in the end I'll be able to celebrate a win for liberty while chastising the dildos doing drive-by moonings of the White House.

Precisely because of the abuses of the interstate commerce argument we've seen pile up over the years. I think mainstream conservatives are probably only slightly more interested than their liberal counterparts in enforcing a very narrow application of this concept, broadly speaking. But when it's being used to justify a liberal pet project, people tend to rediscover their ideological purity pretty fast.

Just a cynical side comment, really...
Is this still Wombat?

antelope19

As someone who is a healthcare professional AND as someone who meets with 8-10 small business(2-250 employees) owners a week to consult with them about their employee benefits, I feel like I should weigh in on this.......

The VAST majority of them, both men and women, think it's a joke and are pretty tired of being told they have to do one thing one week and something different the next(see COBRA).  The overwhelming response?  "Does it even matter?  Who knows what's going to happen or what we're going to be responsibloe for?  There's a (good) chance the president won't even be re-elected"

Don't shoot the messenger!  Just forwarding the sentiments of the small business owner in the MD, DC, and northern VA area.  I know it's not the popular opinion around here, but there's alot of truth what I'm dealing with on a daily basis.   
Quote
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment

runawayjimbo

Quote from: V00D00BR3W on November 14, 2011, 05:36:47 PM
Precisely because of the abuses of the interstate commerce argument we've seen pile up over the years. I think mainstream conservatives are probably only slightly more interested than their liberal counterparts in enforcing a very narrow application of this concept, broadly speaking. But when it's being used to justify a liberal pet project, people tend to rediscover their ideological purity pretty fast.

Just a cynical side comment, really...

I hear you. I think both sides are pretty quick to abandon their principles when it benefits their prerogative. I was just pointing out that it doesn't make sense to let the partisan hacks and their inherent dickishness influence your opinion. Bad policy is bad policy regardless of who proposes it.

Quote from: antelope19 on November 14, 2011, 10:00:58 PM
The VAST majority of them, both men and women, think it's a joke and are pretty tired of being told they have to do one thing one week and something different the next(see COBRA).  The overwhelming response?  "Does it even matter?  Who knows what's going to happen or what we're going to be responsibloe for?  There's a (good) chance the president won't even be re-elected"

I know it's a stock GOP line, but the uncertainty created by burdensome regulation really is a major reason why employers are reluctant to hire.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

antelope19

It's also a MAJOR reason why companies AREN'T offering health insurance if they aren't already. Not only are they required to shoulder a huge expense from the premiums, they're having to pay extra for lawyers and CPAs for advice to make sure their going to be in compliance. Based on the penalties they would be subjected to if they weren't in compliance, I can't say I blame them. The fines alone would force many a small business to close its doors.
Quote
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment

twatts

#276
Quote from: antelope19 on November 14, 2011, 10:00:58 PM
The VAST majority of them, both men and women, think it's a joke

It is a joke.  Because the vast majority will retain their employer based insurance.  And so it won't make a difference... 

Now if you tell me that my rates will go up because of it, I'd rather say the rates would go up because the wind blows...

Terry
Oh! That! No, no, no, you're not ready to step into The Court of the Crimson King. At this stage in your training an album like that could turn you into an evil scientist.

----------------------

I want super-human will
I want better than average skill
I want a million dollar bill
And I want it all in a Pill

rowjimmy

Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 14, 2011, 10:25:22 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 14, 2011, 10:00:58 PM
The VAST majority of them, both men and women, think it's a joke and are pretty tired of being told they have to do one thing one week and something different the next(see COBRA).  The overwhelming response?  "Does it even matter?  Who knows what's going to happen or what we're going to be responsibloe for?  There's a (good) chance the president won't even be re-elected"

I know it's a stock GOP line, but the uncertainty created by burdensome regulation really is a major reason why employers are reluctant to hire.

I call bullshit:
QuoteWASHINGTON -- With the economy in a slump for nearly four years, corporate executives and conservative politicians have repeatedly invoked "uncertainty" as a major barrier to American job-creation. The "uncertainty" jab is a go-to talking point for any congressional Republican looking to tag President Barack Obama as a tax-raising, regulation-obsessed foe of American businesses.

But according to banking data compiled by economic research firm Moebs Services, the uncertainty plaguing the American economy has nothing to do with government regulations or taxes on millionaires. It's an uncertainty driven squarely by consumers and small-businesses who are worried about their short-term financial prospects. And it's been going on since well before Obama took up residence in the White House.

Since the end of 2007, bank customers have pulled over $900 billion out of certificates of deposits at major U.S. banks, parking their money in checking accounts and money market deposit accounts. Banks pay customers interest to park their money in CDs, but pay out next-to-nothing for money market accounts, and still less -- usually nothing -- for checking accounts.

"These are enormous shifts," Moebs Services founder and Chairman Mike Moebs told HuffPost. "We haven't seen stuff like this since the 1930s."

Money market and checking accounts offer consumers the ability to withdraw their money quickly, while CDs require the funds to be locked up for years. And that heavy reliance on short-term cash indicates a tremendous amount of uncertainty among the American public about the future -- people with jobs are uncertain about whether they will have one in a year, people without jobs have to pay the bills and don't know how long their unemployment checks will keep coming in.

"People are beginning to realize that zero is a good number if the alternative is a negative number," said Ed Friedman, a director at Moody's Analytics.

The total balance of retail CDs -- interest-bearing accounts targeting ordinary consumers -- has fallen by about $350 billion since the end of 2007. Checking accounts, meanwhile, have climbed by an almost identical amount over the same time period -- jumping from $620 billion to $960 billion, an increase of over 50 percent, which has occurred despite repeated threats from big banks to charge new checking fees.

Another $570 billion has been pulled from "jumbo" CDs -- bigger CD accounts that are used by the wealthy or businesses -- while money market deposit account balances have jumped from $3.9 trillion to $5.7 trillion, suggesting an additional flow of money from other investments, like the stock market and mutual funds.

"People continue to be very pessimistic," said economist Dean Baker, co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, noting that economic conditions like the trouble in Europe could dramatically disrupt financial markets in the near future. "It wouldn't be irrational to stay out now."

This rush to easily accessed, low-paying accounts is a symptom of the recession itself. When people are out of work, they cannot afford the luxury of having their money tied up in longer-term investments. The bills have to be paid.

The shift in consumer banking behavior has also tracked an overall stagnation in the federal money supply, making the change all the more significant.

Moebs runs calculations that correspond to a measure of the total supply of money that the Federal Reserve ceased to cover during the Bush years, once known as the "M3" metric. The metric aggregates the currency in peoples' pocketbooks, checking accounts, CDs, money market accounts and other assets that were viewed as highly liquid prior to the current recession. And according to Moebs, that supply of money has gone from $10.6 trillion in 2007 to $11.3 trillion in the first quarter of 2011 -- an increase of less than 2 percent per year. That compares to an increase of more than 9 percent over the course of 2007 alone.

This kind of uncertainty -- a lack of consumer confidence -- can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. When consumers pull their money out of longer-term investments, banks are reluctant to make longer-term loans, which in turn can hamper businesses, which become reluctant to hire without access to credit. The government can, in fact, take steps to alleviate the kind of uncertainty by boosting demand in the economy -- essentially, spending government money. But with congressional Republicans vilifying government spending on a regular basis, this prospect has been unlikely for years.

"It's really a function of the liquidity trap," said Josh Bivens, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think-tank. "We have way too little spending in the economy, which is why we have low interest rates across the board. But then once you see interest rates piling up near the zero-bound, uncertainty is going to drive people to cash."

The Federal Reserve, however, has options. The Fed has kept interest rates low for years, and resorted to exotic maneuvers to encourage consumers and companies to spend money and boost the economy. But since 2008, the Fed has actually paid banks to park their excess reserves at the central bank, rather than lend them out into the economy. If the Fed wanted that money to make its way to consumers and businesses and stimulate job growth, it could simply reverse its policy -- instead of paying banks interest on excess reserves, it could charge them fees. At present, banks can actually make money by doing nothing with their money. If there were a penalty for doing nothing, banks would work harder to find good loan candidates.

"The money doesn't end up going out into the marketplace," Nomi Prins, former managing director for Goldman Sachs, said. "It would make sense to reverse the policy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/gop-uncertain-economy-debunked_n_1088448.html


mbw

I called bullshit as soon as an insurance salesman referred to himself as a healthcare professional.

rowjimmy

Quote from: mirthbeatenworker on November 15, 2011, 08:52:58 AM
I called bullshit as soon as an insurance salesman referred to himself as a healthcare professional.

This

runawayjimbo

Quote from: rowjimmy on November 15, 2011, 08:24:51 AM
Quote from: runawayjimbo on November 14, 2011, 10:25:22 PM
Quote from: antelope19 on November 14, 2011, 10:00:58 PM
The VAST majority of them, both men and women, think it's a joke and are pretty tired of being told they have to do one thing one week and something different the next(see COBRA).  The overwhelming response?  "Does it even matter?  Who knows what's going to happen or what we're going to be responsibloe for?  There's a (good) chance the president won't even be re-elected"

I know it's a stock GOP line, but the uncertainty created by burdensome regulation really is a major reason why employers are reluctant to hire.

I call bullshit:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/gop-uncertain-economy-debunked_n_1088448.html

Well if the HuffPo says it, it must be so.  :roll:  So what, in your mind, debunks the very real world example lope gave about the uncertainty small employers are facing with respect to healthcare costs and the lanside of regulatory hoop jumping that goes along with it?

Of course there are a multitude of reasons why we've lost millions of jobs since Obama took office. But to think consumer uncertainty as represented by an increase in checking accounts has more to do with staggering levels of long-term unemployment than an inability on the part of employers to budget for and hire more permanent workers is, IMO, completely missing the point. Consumers are uncertain because there's no jobs, not the other way around.

I almost thought the author was on to something at the end when he talked about the Fed paying interest on excess reserves but then, in true HuffPo fashion, he blows way past reasonable to WTF?! territory. Absolutely the Fed should not be paying interest on excess reserves and removing that would certainly increase lending. But to say there should be a fee imposed on banks holding excess reserves is absurd. Does this jackass really not remember what happened the last time we gave banks an incentive to undercapitalize?
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

UncleEbinezer

I know this thread is about healthcare but...

QuoteAbsolutely the Fed should not be paying interest on excess reserves and removing that would certainly increase lending. But to say there should be a fee imposed on banks holding excess reserves is absurd. Does this jackass really not remember what happened the last time we gave banks an incentive to undercapitalize?

Imposing a fee would be stupid.  Banks are holding excessive reserves because its safe money.  That's not where the money is made anyhow, its in lending, but until all of the bad debt is out of the system, banks are going to remain tight.  Once it settles out and they can better gauge their provisions for loan loss, I think you will see some more.  It is going to take a long time.  The amount of money tied up in bad debt is ridiculous and its long.  Its not like these are automobiles. 
Quote from: bvaz
if you ever gacve me free beer, I'd bankrupt you  :-D

sls.stormyrider

do you think everyone in this country should have access to health care? (i do)
do you think someone should be excluded because of a prior illness? (I don't)
hospitals and physicians are required to give emergent care regardless of ability to pay - should they just eat that loss? (something that is otherwise unusual in a capitalistic society) - unless you think hospitals should be able to turn people away like some attendees at a recent republican debate.
do you think that rights come with responsibility (I do)

the only way this can reasonably be paid for is that everyone pays their share. If some people "opted out", it would likely affect the rates of everyone. if insurance companies were allowed to cherry pick, people with chronic illness may lose coverage.
it has been argued that if one has a health savings account, they should be able to opt out of insurance - they better have a huge account if they plan on ever getting sick.

imo the mandate for health insurance is analogous to statewide mandates on car insurance. yes, I realize we are comparing federal vs state, but I'm looking at this on "the right thing to do"
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

Hicks

If a company declines to hire because of the cost of health insurance then they are stupid.

You can always hire on a contract basis if you don't want to provide benefits.
Quote from: Trey Anastasio
But, I don't think our fans do happily lap it up, I think they go online and talk about how it was a bad show.

runawayjimbo

do you think everyone in this country should have access to health care?
I do

do you think someone should be excluded because of a prior illness?
No, but I don't think it is unreasonable to say people using the most should pay more than people using very little

hospitals and physicians are required to give emergent care regardless of ability to pay - should they just eat that loss?
I do think there should be more charitable services, but that can only be possible if the cost of care comes down significantly

do you think that rights come with responsibility
Is that from Spider Man?

Quote from: slslbs on November 15, 2011, 10:51:54 AM
the only way this can reasonably be paid for is that everyone pays their share. If some people "opted out", it would likely affect the rates of everyone. if insurance companies were allowed to cherry pick, people with chronic illness may lose coverage.
it has been argued that if one has a health savings account, they should be able to opt out of insurance - they better have a huge account if they plan on ever getting sick.

As I've said (and you've agreed), the issue is that costs have unreasonably increased and the current law does absolutely nothing to change that. The "bending the cost curve" line he was so fond of is a great idea; the problem is that this law will not do that.

Quote from: slslbs on November 15, 2011, 10:51:54 AM
imo the mandate for health insurance is analogous to statewide mandates on car insurance. yes, I realize we are comparing federal vs state, but I'm looking at this on "the right thing to do"

Can't afford/choose not to buy car insurance? Take the bus. Can't afford/choose not to buy health insurance? Pay a tax. That's doesn't sit well with me.

Quote from: Hicks on November 15, 2011, 10:59:14 AM
If a company declines to hire because of the cost of health insurance then they are stupid.

You can always hire on a contract basis if you don't want to provide benefits.

How do you sustain a recovery with an influx of contract workers? How does that affect consumer sentiment knowing that their employment can be terminated at any time for any reason? Adding contract worker is like adding a people for the census or a dept store during the holidays. We need permanent jobs, not temporary ones.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.