2278 replies to this topic

[LongLiveYorke]

BaseJester, on Tuesday, November 29th, 2011, 7:23 PM, said:

I don't think providing for the common defence and general welfare are separate powers granted by clause 1. Those are the restrictive clauses on the reasons that Congress can tax.

Yeah, probably you're right, so maybe it's not as applicable as I thought since it's not really a tax. I'm no Constitutional scholar.

[All_In]

hblask, on Sunday, November 27th, 2011, 5:18 PM, said:

Assume that the individual mandate stands on the assumption that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce (this seems to be the primary arguments why it is OK).Say that mandatory gym memberships are being pushed on the basis that "not being ill" is a public good and therefore affects commerce.Can you say one is OK and the other isn't? Not from a practical standpoint, not from a "that's a law I want passed" standpoint, but from a consistent legal standpoint.

paranoid much? better cling to your religion and guns.

[hblask]

All_In, on Wednesday, November 30th, 2011, 9:18 PM, said:

paranoid much? better cling to your religion and guns.

[The Ocho]

hblask, on Wednesday, November 30th, 2011, 8:00 PM, said:

I am stealing this. I love it!

[Dread Aidan]

The Ocho, on Wednesday, November 30th, 2011, 8:22 PM, said:

I am stealing this. I love it!

Wait, is it too late for me to also steal it?

[All_In]

Dread Aidan, on Thursday, December 1st, 2011, 9:56 AM, said:

Wait, is it too late for me to also steal it?

i am stealing it as well.

[Balloon guy]

All_In, on Thursday, December 1st, 2011, 9:20 PM, said:

i am stealing it as well.

It will save us all a lot of time if you just put it in your signature.

[FCP Bob]

Very good Forbes article. How Employer-Sponsored Insurance Drives Up Health Costs

Quote

A new study in Health Affairs is attracting attention for its depiction of how powerful hospitals are extracting “steep payment increases” from insurers. But what the study really tells us is how much the exceptional cost of American health insurance is caused by our system’s original sin: the fact that, due to a quirk in the federal tax code, most of us don’t buy insurance for ourselves, but instead have it bought on our behalf by our employers.“In the constant attention paid to what drives health costs,” the authors begin, “only recently has scrutiny been applied to the power that some health care providers, particularly dominant hospital systems, wield to negotiate higher payment rates from insurers.” If you’re a regular reader of The Apothecary, you know from where some of that scrutiny has come. And hence, you won’t be surprised to learn that the Health Affairs study does indeed find that powerful hospital systems have the power to dictate prices to insurers.ARTICLE CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE

[hblask]

FCP Bob, on 12 May 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Very good Forbes article. How Employer-Sponsored Insurance Drives Up Health Costs

Yep, if there is one health care reform that congress were to do that would have the biggest positive impact, it would be to eliminate the employer benefit and give it to individuals. This alone would, over the course of 5-10 years, reshape the market in ways that inspire innovation and competition. If they also included interstate competition, it would be the equivalent of deregulating the airlines and trucking in the 70s.

[phlegm]

hblask, on 13 May 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yep, if there is one health care reform that congress were to do that would have the biggest positive impact, it would be to eliminate the employer benefit and give it to individuals. This alone would, over the course of 5-10 years, reshape the market in ways that inspire innovation and competition. If they also included interstate competition, it would be the equivalent of deregulating the airlines and trucking in the 70s.

Not sure this is what bob had in mind.

[hblask]

phlegm, on 13 May 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Not sure this is what bob had in mind.

I'm not sure either, but it is the title of the article and the most important point. Ever since the first distortion started, the government has been chasing it's mistakes by doubling down on them instead of fixing them.

[FCP Bob]

My point in posting that link was to show how bad linking health care to employment is.Whether your healthcare system is private or a public/private hybrid linking it to employment has no advantages that I can see and some horrible negatives. It should be obvious to everybody that making people stay in a particular job so they can keep their health insurance is bad public policy but that article also showed how it increases costs which isn't something that is as obvious.

[JubilantLankyLad]

.

[akoff]

as an employer i would be thrilled to not be forced into providing healthcare. if the choice remains between washington and employers providing it - we'll continue.the key is at least you are required to have a job and in theory produce something to have insurance...as opposed to just being born and living.

[FCP Bob]

The system is so screwed up.http://www.forbes.co...na-republicans/

[brvheart]

FCP Bob, on 28 May 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

The system is so screwed up.http://www.forbes.co...na-republicans/

Where do you find these terrible articles, Bob? Do you get like a list of lying, leftist authors from the "conservative Canadian" mother-ship or something?That headline is awesome... especially since it holds that special distinction of having nothing to do with the actual article AND the fact that it's a lie. Well done, leftist opinion submitter.

[FCP Bob]

Forbes Twitter feed.I just ignored the headline talking about Republicans since it just as easily could have been Democrats. It's the system that's broken when the lobbyists control the agenda like they do.

[akoff]

brvheart, on 28 May 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Where do you find these terrible articles, Bob?

this is exactly what i was thinking.

[FCP Bob]

The headline is bad. The article is good and if you take the time to read it I would be surprised if anybody who supports a free market disagrees with the substance of it.

[AmScray]

Can anyone refute the substance of that article?