Dems Drop Pub Op for Non prof co-ops

[dmt16]

Except that, whatever they do, it will be illegal, since there is no Constitutional authority for the Feds to legislate health care.

It does not have to be in the Constitution in order for something to be legal. The Constitution is a framework. It does not, and never will, specifically address every piece of legislation that comes down the pike. Stop using this excuse for everything you don't like.

[dmt16]

They aren't. This is such a great idea that they can't even get their own party on the same page with it. If it were as easy as Obama's makes it sound in his speech wouldnt it be a slam dunk and already through?

Health care is tough. Obama knew that going in, and that it would, in the short term, cost him some political capital. It was never a slam dunk, ever. But it will get done.

[ms maggie]

Except that, whatever they do, it will be illegal, since there is no Constitutional authority for the Feds to legislate health care.

Can you show me where the authority for the space program is? Or how about the Center for Disease Control? Or outlawing same sex marriage? How about gun ownership absent a reasonable relationship to the "well regulated militia" provision of the second amendment?

[redleg]

They can shoot for a stronger public option later on. It's not politically practical to attempt to pass a strong public option right now.

So what you are saying is that they will do whatever they think they can get away with now, regardless of our wants, and then do whatever they want to later, when we aren't looking? I think we need to put all of them in prison now, and then try them at our convenience.

[redleg]

So is that the answer? Do we need to establish a government fund to subsidize those who don't qualify?

No, we need to get government out of health care altogether.

[redleg]

The insurance companies stand to benefit from this bill because it proposes mandatory health insurance.

Do you think everyone who doesn't have insurance will go to a non-profit co-op?

Irrelevant. If even half of those allegedly not currently insured go to an insurance company, and that company is required to insure them regardless of their health, but that company isn't allowed to charge what it would cost them, they will go under.

[redleg]

Adding 30 million new subscribers would allow insurers to lower their premiums somewhat. By how much? I don't know. I don't know if it will be cheaper or affordable. I do know that 30 million new customers is a huge plus for private insurers. They will find a way to exploit the "mandated" need for everyone to have insurance.

How? If it takes, say, 20 healthy customers to pay for one with a preexisting condition, how will an insurance company stay afloat if they have to take in 1000, or 10,000 with preexisting conditions? And they won't be able to charge what it would cost them to cover those with preexisting conditions.

[redleg]

Do you understand the concept of insurance? The underlying premise is to spread the risk. Bell shaped curve and all of that. So yes, some people will require more $$ than they put in, likewise some people will require less. Alert the media.

Your question re how long can a business sustain clients who cost more than they generate is comical. Hey, you don't want to assume any risk, here's a thought, don't go into a business whose entire raison d'etre is the reality of risk.

It's one thing to go into a business based on protecting risk, when you are calculating the risk, and charging accordingly. It's an entirely different situation when the government steps in and throws all of your calculations out the window and decides how much of a risk someone is for you, and then tells you what you can charge for that risk. Especially when those doing the telling have failed in the real world to the point that they had to go into politics to survive.

[redleg]

They'll absorb them by means of lower profits. (Insurance companies are hugely profitable--where do think AIG found all that money to piss away?, esp HMOs). I like the position of the insurance companies: we don't want to take on pre-existing conditions; likewise we don't want the competition of govt or co-ops that will take on pre-existing conditions either.

So insurance companies get to decide that people w serious med problems have no insurance options. Gee what's wrong with that?

The average HC insurance company has about a 4.7% profit margin. That's a "huge" profit to you? Besides, they earned that money, it's not the government's place to decide how that money is spent. As long as they are fulfilling their contracts with their customers, it's none of the government's business.

[redleg]

Well certainly we need details. But assuming it's a priori FOS?

Here is my thing: healthcare should not be for profit, period. I have no problem w providers (doctors, nurses, others) making good money. But an insurance industry (and HMOs are the big offenders) that has evolved to making medical decisions, adding no value to medical delivery and driving up costs (as opposed to the original HMO sell in: we will save employers money), why do we need this? People are uncomfortable w the feds taking it over, fine. Let the individual states take it over. I am old enough to remember when all hospitals were either municipal entities or religious entities, all non profits. Not that they were problem free, but beats this whole mess.

Rant over.

You can thank the Federal government for that, since they were the ones that found a solution, and had to find a problem to put it to. And you want more government interference?
As for not making a profit on medical care, what fantasy world do you live in? Should those that produce and distribute food make a profit? How about those that build and sell houses? Health care is a commodity, just like food and housing, and if you don't want profit, you don't want health care.

[redleg]

It does not have to be in the Constitution in order for something to be legal. The Constitution is a framework. It does not, and never will, specifically address every piece of legislation that comes down the pike. Stop using this excuse for everything you don't like.

Yes, the Constitution is a framework, and it puts limits on the Federal government. That means that anything the Feds do outside of the Constitution is illegal. This is outside the Constitution, therefore it's illegal. Try reading a bit of history on the founding of this country, and the writing of the Consitution. The 10A by itself makes this power grab illegal.

[redleg]

Can you show me where the authority for the space program is? Or how about the Center for Disease Control? Or outlawing same sex marriage? How about gun ownership absent a reasonable relationship to the "well regulated militia" provision of the second amendment?

The first 3 are illegal for the Feds to control, unless the CDC is nothing more than an information clearinghouse.
As for gun ownership, you, like most on the Left, have real trouble reading plain English. Whether a miltia is the motivating factor or not, the right of the people to own and carry firearms is prohibited for the Feds to interfere with. They can't legally pass any legislation dealing with the subject.

[ms maggie]

The average HC insurance company has about a 4.7% profit margin. That's a "huge" profit to you? Besides, they earned that money, it's not the government's place to decide how that money is spent. As long as they are fulfilling their contracts with their customers, it's none of the government's business.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...tries/profits/

4.7% for 2008, prior to that, in the 10-11% range. And of course this is all smoke, if you drill down you'll see the biggest players are Met Life and Prudential Financial, two companies whose investiment activities dwarf their insurance holdings.

And 4 percent net is a respectable margin for a service industry. Try retailing.

[ms maggie]

The first 3 are illegal for the Feds to control, unless the CDC is nothing more than an information clearinghouse.
As for gun ownership, you, like most on the Left, have real trouble reading plain English. Whether a miltia is the motivating factor or not, the right of the people to own and carry firearms is prohibited for the Feds to interfere with. They can't legally pass any legislation dealing with the subject.

Oh I can read fine. You walked right into it.

You have this tight, narrow interpretation on one hand--the Constitution means EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS, NO MORE, NO LESS. Except that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is just so much fluff, a throw-away or in your words--whether a militia is the motivating factor or not. OR NOT??? Holy interpretation Batman!! Seems to me you folks are all about it either says it or it doesn't. So what's up with this "whether..or not" stuff??

And I'm sure you're aware of the underpinning of English common law of our Constitution, wherein the crown required citizens to keep arms for military duty. But hey, why complicate things with history? That clause, it's just silly and the one part of the Constitution that you're happy to ignore.

Oh funny people.