OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

I think you completely missed the point, I said "insurance companies" not just limited to medical insurance. That being said, they are still making a profit, which is not that common in today's economy. Insurance companies for the most part dont lose money, that is the point. Its not about how much profit they make, its about the fact they almost always make profit.

And of course, executive compensation is counted as an expense.

[Y2HH]

And of course, executive compensation is counted as an expense.

 

...in every industry, so that's irrelevant. Profit margins are profit margins are profit margins. Fact remains that health insurers aren't making tons of money like everyone continuously claims they are. Most (not all mind you), but most make profits...but not massive profits that people presume.

[StrangeSox]

...in every industry, so that's irrelevant. Profit margins are profit margins are profit margins. Fact remains that health insurers aren't making tons of money like everyone continuously claims they are. Most (not all mind you), but most make profits...but not massive profits that people presume.

 

I remember asking kap this way back when, but why? What's the point of the for-profit insurance industry? What innovations are there? What social good does it serve? What benefits does it actually offer over single-payer aside from ideological preferences.

 

the overhead costs at private insurances are typically significantly higher than Medicare, so there's no gains there.

Edited March 27, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I think you completely missed the point, I said "insurance companies" not just limited to medical insurance. That being said, they are still making a profit, which is not that common in today's economy. Insurance companies for the most part dont lose money, that is the point. Its not about how much profit they make, its about the fact they almost always make profit.

 

I didn't miss the point. This is about Health Insurance companies, in a health insurance thread...so bringing non health insurance companies, even if they're other types of insurance companies, into the conversation is irrelevant...they're NOT the same business. And insurance companies, including health insurance companies, do lose money...so you have no point. You can't say "for the most part" and try to make a point about it...as it stands, their profit margins are extremely low (2-4%), and if something goes wrong, such as losing the wrong contract, they actually DO post losses. Again, they don't almost always make profits. Good companies make profits, regardless of industry. There have been PLENTY of health insurance, and other insurance companies that have lost money and/or went out of business. But keep pretending it doesn't happen...because I can already see that's what you're doing.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

I remember asking kap this way back when, but why? What's the point of the for-profit insurance industry? What innovations are there? What social good does it serve? What benefits does it actually offer over single-payer aside from ideological preferences.

 

the overhead costs at private insurances are typically significantly higher than Medicare, so there's no gains there.

 

I don't know...I don't work for a for profit health insurer...but who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to say they can't exist in a free market? Don't like for profit insurance companies...then don't do business with them.

[Y2HH]

You also have an overwhelming number of legal scholars who, until today, felt pretty sure that the SC would find that mandate clearly constitutional. So you can't fault the liberal justices for supporting what most constitutional scholars believed was the proper interpretation of the commerce and N&P clauses.

 

Kennedy's concern appears to be over the government defining a "limiting principle," but previous Commerce rulings required no such standard and, besides, limiting principles already exist in previous conservative rulings and aren't expanded by the ACA.

 

There have been plenty of legal scholars that have said the opposite, too. Yes, I can fault them for supporting something. They're job isn't to "support" anything, it's to intrepret the law. And again, you keep pointing to "most constitutional scholars" simply because they happen to agree with your opinion on it, while totally disregarding the OTHER constitutional scholars that said it was unconstitutional.

 

The way I see it, they're basing their opinions strictly on a political ideology. As for the highest court in the land usually voting 5-4 on landmark cases...shows that their opinions are based on political affiliations, not blind interpretation of the law. I find it hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that these huge cases always end up 5-4 and politics aren't playing a role. Our highest court has problem, and that's IMO, they're infected by politics.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Y2hh,

 

And I made a general point about the fact that in my experience, insurance companies are very good at ensuring their profitability.

 

Maybe health insurance companies are the only exception, I dont deal with them that often, which is why I said "insurance companies", not "health insurance companies."

 

Regardless it was about the fact that Im sure the health insurance companies will find a way to make money or change policies. They arent just going to sit and lose money, that was the point, and if youd like to disagree with it, so be it. Im not about to get into an argument over profit margins, because that really had nothing to do with the statement.

[StrangeSox]

There have been plenty of legal scholars that have said the opposite, too.

 

A pretty strong majority have said that it is obviously constitutional.

[Y2HH]

Y2hh,

 

And I made a general point about the fact that in my experience, insurance companies are very good at ensuring their profitability.

 

Maybe health insurance companies are the only exception, I dont deal with them that often, which is why I said "insurance companies", not "health insurance companies."

 

Regardless it was about the fact that Im sure the health insurance companies will find a way to make money or change policies. They arent just going to sit and lose money, that was the point, and if youd like to disagree with it, so be it. Im not about to get into an argument over profit margins, because that really had nothing to do with the statement.

 

Well they'd have to find a new way to make money or they'd go out of business. That's not what I'm disagreeing with you about.

 

Any for profit business tries to find a way to make money or change policies for the reason I stated above. As for insurance companies (non health), I really dislike their business practices because unlike Health insurers, they're under almost NO rules/regulations whatsoever about costs, etc...they just do whatever they want...and get away with it.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

abolish for-profit health insurance, single-payer medicare for everyone

[GoSox05]

abolish for-profit health insurance, single-payer medicare for everyone

 

 

Sorry, but I don't want to live in the Soviet Union.

[Balta1701]

Sorry, but I don't want to live in the Soviet Union.

[StrangeSox]

The funny thing is that a fully socialized healthcare system is plainly constitutional but this cobbled together patch based on conservative thinktanks is what we get instead.

[Y2HH]

The funny thing is that a fully socialized healthcare system is plainly constitutional but this cobbled together patch based on conservative thinktanks is what we get instead.

 

Right, because the conservatives of this nation, throughout history, all by their little bitty selves, founded, implemented and wrote all the laws surrounding what we have.

[StrangeSox]

Right, because the conservatives of this nation, throughout history, all by their little bitty selves, founded, implemented and wrote all the laws surrounding what we have.

 

I was referring to the PPACA, not the existing structure.

[Y2HH]

I was referring to the PPACA, not the existing structure.

 

They didn't write the PPACA themselves, either.

[Jenksismyhero]

There have been plenty of legal scholars that have said the opposite, too. Yes, I can fault them for supporting something. They're job isn't to "support" anything, it's to intrepret the law. And again, you keep pointing to "most constitutional scholars" simply because they happen to agree with your opinion on it, while totally disregarding the OTHER constitutional scholars that said it was unconstitutional.

 

The way I see it, they're basing their opinions strictly on a political ideology. As for the highest court in the land usually voting 5-4 on landmark cases...shows that their opinions are based on political affiliations, not blind interpretation of the law. I find it hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that these huge cases always end up 5-4 and politics aren't playing a role. Our highest court has problem, and that's IMO, they're infected by politics.

 

Your belief systems are tired directly to your ideology. What your suggesting is interpretation based strictly on what? Just whether document X says expressly that you can do Y? If the Framers didn't think about it are we screwed forever?

 

How you view the role of government in your life is going to matter when deciding if X is a power under the Constitution. Personally I think the liberal/conservative leanings of the Court has less to do with which side you're on for various issues, and more about different governmental philosophies, i.e. the role of government and the interplay between local, State and Federal governments.

[StrangeSox]

They didn't write the PPACA themselves, either.

 

The guy who wrote the conservative Mass. law that was based on the Heritage recommendations said that the PPACA was the "same f***ing bill."

 

My point wasn't to give conservatives all of the credit or blame for the bill, though. Just pointing out that the attempt make a more bipartisan solution resulted in the garbage bill we got, which admittedly is better than what we had before.

[Y2HH]

Your belief systems are tired directly to your ideology. What your suggesting is interpretation based strictly on what? Just whether document X says expressly that you can do Y? If the Framers didn't think about it are we screwed forever?

 

How you view the role of government in your life is going to matter when deciding if X is a power under the Constitution. Personally I think the liberal/conservative leanings of the Court has less to do with which side you're on for various issues, and more about different governmental philosophies, i.e. the role of government and the interplay between local, State and Federal governments.

 

It's not an easy subject to discuss, that's for sure. In law, I don't feel politics or political leanings belong in any regard...and I know it's impossible for people to not be "infected" by their political beliefs/ideologies...so what I'm wishing for is mostly impossible...but I think politics in our courts have reached a level never before seen...it's clearly a divided supreme court now...and I guarantee liberals are hoping one of the conservative justices dies or is forced to step down so a Democratic president can replace them, before another republican president comes around. And why? For the exact reasons I stated shouldn't belong in that court. Because they know they'd get a 5th liberal justice. And that's that. Just like conservatives are hoping (and praying) that one of the 5 conservatives on that panel does NOT die or step down.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

It's not an easy subject to discuss, that's for sure. In law, I don't feel politics or political leanings belong in any regard...and I know it's impossible for people to not be "infected" by their political beliefs/ideologies...so what I'm wishing for is mostly impossible...but I think politics in our courts have reached a level never before seen...it's clearly a divided supreme court now...and I guarantee liberals are hoping one of the conservative justices dies or is forced to step down so a Democratic president can replace them, before another republican president comes around. And why? For the exact reasons I stated shouldn't belong in that court. Because they know they'd get a 5th liberal justice. And that's that.

And similarly, if a Republican is elected and Justice Kennedy retires, that'll be the last of Roe V. Wade.

[StrangeSox]

But deeper philosophies form your political ideologies, and these same beliefs are going to impact your jurisprudence. that doesn't mean you're necessarily politically biased in your decisions, though.

 

 

[Y2HH]

And similarly, if a Republican is elected and Justice Kennedy retires, that'll be the last of Roe V. Wade.

 

Exactly, and I amended my post to include something to that effect. It doesn't belong in that court.

[Balta1701]

But deeper philosophies form your political ideologies, and these same beliefs are going to impact your jurisprudence. that doesn't mean you're necessarily politically biased in your decisions, though.

But the other side here is that a person who doesn't decide their jurisprudence (at least in the biggest cases) based on anything other than the prevailing political beliefs of their appointing party will not reach the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy was the last one like that you'll see.

[Jenksismyhero]

And this is not at all the first time that we've had a divided court based on party ideology. FDR wanted to amend the Constitution to add more justices because he was tired of the "Republican" justices on the Court striking down his laws.

[Balta1701]

And this is not at all the first time that we've had a divided court based on party ideology. FDR wanted to amend the Constitution to add more justices because he was tired of the "Republican" justices on the Court striking down his laws.

There really is something that seems off if the way this country is governed is grandfathered in based on which party's President was in power when 5 of the justices were appointed versus which party's president was in power when 4 of the justices were appointed.

 

(Especially if that grandfathering decides the next president, but somehow I feel like that's digressing).

 

IF that's the way it's going to be then there ought to be at least term limits on the court so that the court can shift as society shifts more readily.