Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Well at least this will provide some distraction to the presidential race:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17513609

I don't know why, but I found the map of %uninsured by state interesting. I'm guessing some of that is driven by immigration trends, but Oregon & Montana?

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Yeah, I just saw that and noticed Texas was in the >25% uninsured level.
It really is a dividing line between the poor and everyone else. Individual plans are way more expensive that group plans and chances are that those that are considered 'middle class' or above are likely to be in jobs that offer group insurance policies and the accompanying rates.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

On the contrary, this case could well define the presidential race.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Sorry, you're right. I meant the nomination race!

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

I do like how having to have medical insurance is a intrusion to ones civil liberties, but most people don't have a problem being forced into the same for car insurance.

Some people, they're just to dumb to be allowed outside of their basements.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

I'm surprised at the Oregon figure and wonder if it is right. What do they include as uninsured. This State is one of the more progressive in setting up heath cover. We have a high risk pool for those that can pay, but the insurance companies refuse cover to. We have an insurance program for those that can't pay, there is a waiting list for the places but if covers a lot of residents, which includes all children whose families can't pay. The State Legislator at its session earlier this year passed a bill to set up our own insurance exchange.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

You don't have to drive a car so I'm unconvinced this is an equivalent. Additionally, some states allow you to post a bond in lieu of insurance.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

betting site Intrade is currently predicting Supreme's will not find the law unconstitutional.

Link

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Concur. I do not need airplane insurance, yet I fly or vacation insurance when I take a vacation.

I think some parts of the law are valid, but the universal mandate is the major issue.

BTW SCOTUS even challenged the admin, including Dems: Is it a tax or penalty. That is a key point of the reach of congress in the commerce clause.

I do fear that 2nd and 3rd order effects of this law for many, their employers will drop coverage in favor of the fine, its cheaper to the employers.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

True. You could choose not to have a car and walk or use public transport. You could choose not to have health insurance because you think you won't need it. When you do fall ill or have an unexpected medical problem, you'll either pay direct out-of-pocket and/or go bankrupt or go to the ER and let everybody else pay for you.

It all seems so simple :confused:

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

The "get out of jail card" of going to the emergency room is a critical part of the debate, imo. But I suspect Scalia et al will respond that if Congress is bothered about this, they should pass a law that excludes people without the ability to pay from ER treatment.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Okay, some states, such as New Hampshire don't require you to have any car insurance, but as the state is the size of the pimple on my arse and you can't drive without insurance in the neighbouring states that's a bit moot for a freedom, when you consider only kids are about the only people who don't drive here and that having a car is a requirement, meaning car insurance is a requirement.

Only difference is, you get a ticket for not having insurance for your car, rather than a fine at tax time without having medical insurance.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Yes because that is not part of the SCOTUS appeal. It then gets thrown back to our elected Congressmen (us) asking what kind of society we want. One that says no healthcare for those that can't afford it. Is that what we want? If so then next...stop people going bankrupt over medical bills? Make them pay even if it means paying it off for the rest of their life and/or possibly never paying it off? What's next...make the family of the deceased patient pay for it? I fear if this appeal is successful, SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional it might just open a big can of worms unintentionally.

It all seemed so simple :confused:

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Just to further my point and some others posting. Tax vs. fine/penalty. All folks that work pay into medicare.medicaide. Many of us never use it. Where does that money go? to those that need it.

If I am an employer , I can cancel health insurance benefits for my employees because it is cheaper for me to pay the fine., than pay for their insurance.

The gov't then provides health care banks to buy insurance from since it is the law they have to have it. It is cheaper for the employee to pay the fine, and not have the insurance. Is "their" insurance better, noone knows, "we have to pass the bill to know whats in it." (Nancy P.)

We still have the same problem, but larger. Unintended consequences of politicians dealing with the market.

2 fragments for Eb.

Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case
 

Good! It is a mistake tying health insurance to an employer.