Comments on: SCOTUS seems poised to destroy Obamacare

By: Winston Lee

Winston Lee — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:35:58 +0000

The followiing statement may sound kind of silly: as a consumer I do not commit to buying things until I know HOW MUCH THEY COST.

As a health insurance agent, prices started to go up in the 1980s when government started putting mandates in plans. I used to be able to sell a hospital only plan for $50/month. No more. Everybody in Californa is required to have everything on their plan mandated by the state. No more cheap insurance. nobody can afford it.

Keep the government OUT OF THE FREE MARKET. They screwed it up.
I don’t even want to sell it anymore.

By: sailor1031

sailor1031 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:41:17 +0000

“We don’t know the final outcome yet, of course. This concern … that SCOTUS will strike down the mandate … is based on current reporting from NPR at the scene, where arguments among people who will not be affected by their own decision in any way at all are being made”

It will be like other decisions from this court, made on political-ideological grounds and the constitution be damned! That disgrace to the legal profession, Scalia, has already indicated that if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional then the whole law should be simply invalidated – despite no findings concerning the validity of the other 2600 pages of it. That’s pure ideology! His sock puppet Thomas doesn’t appear to have had anything at all to say, or did I miss something?

By: sailor

sailor — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:42:37 +0000

lordshipmayhem
I followed some of your links.
“Empirical research has found that there is little correlation between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums. A study by researchers at the University of Texas, Columbia University and the University of Illinois based on closed claims compiled by the Texas Department of Insurance concluded that “the rapid changes in insurance premiums that sparked the crisis appear to reflect insurance market dynamics, largely disconnected from claim outcomes.”
Basically it is called profiteering. In New Hampshire the premiums got so high for some specialties the state had to step in and set up a fund for the insurance. The result was a whopping surplus that then started a fight between the state who wanted to grab it and the doctors who had paid in. I cannot remember who won.

By: Xray

Xray — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:49:40 +0000

Greg, your fixes seem a perfectly sane thing to do. Should have been that way from the start. Unfortunately, if SCOTUS kills this law, that is it. It’s over for universal health-care coverage. In 2009 the Dems had control of the House and 59 votes in the Senate (plus Lieberman). It was a once-in-a-generation chance to do good things.

By: lordshipmayhem

lordshipmayhem — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:13:01 +0000

The reason why malpractice settlements have dropped is the introduction in certain states of caps. Prior to tort reform, not only were malpractice awards rising far faster than the rate of inflation, by the mid-1970's malpractice insurance was frequently unobtainable, especially for certain specialties. Reference from Harvard University study here. Since the introduction of award caps in all but six states, the payouts have dropped - but in those states. The remaining states continue to see above-inflation-rate increases in payouts and subsequently, of insurance rates, again where insurance continues to be offered. Reference here.

By: sailor

sailor — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:07:52 +0000

“How bout this, stop frivolous lawsuits against doctors. This will lower malpractice insurance costs”
By next to nothing, this is a complete red herring:
“Medical malpractice payouts are less than one percent of total U.S. health care costs. All “losses” (verdicts, settlements, legal fees, etc.) have stayed under one percent for the last 18 years. Moreover, medical malpractice premiums are less than one percent of total U.S. health care costs as well. Dropping for nearly two decades, malpractice premiums have stayed below one percent of health care costs. Americans for Insurance Reform, “Think Malpractice is Driving Up Health Care Costs? Think Again,”

By: sailor

sailor — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:03:45 +0000

I have always thought the “mandate” was a bad idea. Simpler to have a tax to provide for a public health, single payer system, run by the government. Then have an equal tax deduction for those who buy their own health insurance. This avoids all the court nonsense and preserves choice. Only problem; git it past a bunch of lawmakers who are in the pockets of the healthcare industry, who are terrified of a public option. On the one had they claim: any time the government gets involved in healthcare you suffer, on the other: we cannot possibly compete with a public mandate because they don’t need to rake in billions of profits for fat cats like us.

By: karmakin

karmakin — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:53:23 +0000

Stopping frivolous lawsuits against doctors really requires much larger civil suit reform than just this one issue. It’s something I support, but it’s a much bigger deal than you probably think. Some people say that you just “punish” frivolous or unsuccessful lawsuits, but that really removes a lot of people’s realistic ability to find justice. What you actually need to do is get rid of the mercenary civil system, and bring the civil suit system into the criminal system.

That is, you take your case to the local DA who decides if there’s a case or not, and if there is they prosecute the case for fines and other punishments. The big problem with this is the potential for corruption. It’s 6 of one, half a dozen of the other to be honest. The big plus side is that at this point we can get over the stupid concern about oversized judgements and focus on making effective penalties for corporations.

There are three options for health care, basically. You have single payer, you have a mandate-driven regulated market system, and you have a non-regulated insurance system that are able to rip citizens off left right and center. There are no other options.

By: IraqVet1999

IraqVet1999 — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:17:35 +0000

How bout this, stop frivolous lawsuits against doctors. This will lower malpractice insurance costs, which will inturn cut down medical costs
Then old uncle same can regulate the insurance companies, which will inturn lower rates, then with a nominal tax you would be able to subsidize the people who still couldn’t afford the insurance.

By: rturpin

rturpin — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:19:17 +0000

Were you this impressionable in the field? 😉