Individual mandate unconstitutional

Originally posted by normbenign
In marketing any item in a free market, to reach the mass market, the seller has to price his product or service to be affordable.

The presence of someone, anyone, in that market giving the same thing away, or forcing the producer to accept lower prices, distorts that market. If that someone were a corporate competitor, anti trust laws would kick in. ...[text shortened]... th a well intentioned program, so we accept it, even if the end result is just as bad or worse.

Sure, but you're presuming the distortion reduces social welfare. That's true in a first-best world, but the health insurance market is riddled with the ingredients for market failure, from price-making power on the firm side to adverse selection and moral hazard on the consumer side. Just pointing out that government entrance in the market is distortionary isn't sufficient to show that things would better if it remained absent.

Originally posted by telerion
. Just pointing out that government entrance in the market is distortionary isn't sufficient to show that things would better if it remained absent.[/b]

As with everything else, we will never know how it might have turned out without government intrusion.

Originally posted by wittywonka
So you're still convinced that people will have the foresight, willingness, and ability necessary to enter the reformed system even without compulsion?

If it's worthwhile, yes.

Originally posted by whodey
As with everything else, we will never know how it might have turned out without government intrusion.

Actually, we do. There are plenty of third world countries as models.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Actually, we do. There are plenty of third world countries as models.

Such as...................

Originally posted by sh76
By and large it is so, though it is true that in some states, people earning far less than they need to live comfortably are not eligible for Medicaid. Certainly not everyone who is ineligible for Medicaid can afford private health insurance. Therefore, uther's point that the individual mandate will affect people who cannot afford health insurance is accurate.

Except that's not his point. His point was that there will be people who will still be unable to afford health insurance after the HRA is implemented. And that is far fetched.

Originally posted by normbenign
"The problem we have now isn't because people don't want health insurance; it's because many workers simply can't afford it."

Wrong. Some people make a conscious choice that health insurance is a lower priority than other things. These are mostly young, healthy, and somewhat foolish people.

For those who can't afford it and want it, the same thing ...[text shortened]... would be lower without the already present single payor plans, medicare and medicaid.

This is the usual laughable laissez faire tripe. Sure there are a few people who can afford health insurance who pass on buying it. But the vast majority of the 50 million without coverage in the US lack it because they are not covered by an employer plan and cannot afford the ridiculously high premiums on their own. Those premiums in NY are somewhere in the range of $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 or more for a family. Expecting people at the income levels of $20,000-25,000 to spend 20%-50% of their gross income on health insurance and survive is absurd. So they go without it.

The HRA will expand Medicaid plus grant generous subsidies so that health insurance will be affordable for those people. That is a vast improvement over the present system.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
You seriously should consider a mental health clinic for yourself.

I don't pull punches here anymore. The GOP followers are so fooled by hate filled paranoid rhetoric that they're blind to what they're actually supporting.

Where I an wrong in that the GOP takes all tasks to support the super wealthy at the expense of exploiting and diminishing every program the allows the poor and middle class to have opporunities for education, health and general well being?

I think its all of the blind GOP zealots that need help.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Except that's not his point. His point was that there will be people who will still be unable to afford health insurance after the HRA is implemented. And that is far fetched.

How is it far fetched ? There a plenty of folks who cant afford health insurance now and who are unemployed but at the same time are not eligible for medicaid.

You stated that the unemployed are already eligible for that.
Thats not the case. Being unemployed does not make one necessarily eligible for medicaid.

So what becomes of them under Obamacare ? They have to pay a $3500 penalty every year or face harsher penalties ?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
How is it far fetched ? There a plenty of folks who cant afford health insurance now and who are unemployed but at the same time are not eligible for medicaid.

You stated that the unemployed are already eligible for that.
Thats not the case. Being unemployed does not make one necessarily eligible for medicaid.

So what becomes of them under Obamacare ? They have to pay a $3500 penalty every year or face harsher penalties ?

Obamacare is flawed due to its feckle leader. The mandate is strange but I support it vs having the entire structure fall. The status quo and its near and long term future is far worse.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
How is it far fetched ? There a plenty of folks who cant afford health insurance now and who are unemployed but at the same time are not eligible for medicaid.

You stated that the unemployed are already eligible for that.
Thats not the case. Being unemployed does not make one necessarily eligible for medicaid.

So what becomes of them under Obamacare ? They have to pay a $3500 penalty every year or face harsher penalties ?

Give me some figures on the number of unemployed who are ineligible for Medicaid. Then tell me why they are ineligible. Of course, Medicaid eligibility is expanded under the HRA; it will rise to incomes up to 133% of the poverty line.

People with incomes below the poverty line are exempted from the mandate. People who cannot find a plan on the exchanges that costs less than 8% of their income are exempted from the mandate.

You really should do some homework; the idea that low income people will be adversely effected by the mandate is BS (not that I support the mandate in any case).

Originally posted by badmoon
I don't pull punches here anymore. The GOP followers are so fooled by hate filled paranoid rhetoric that they're blind to what they're actually supporting.

Where I an wrong in that the GOP takes all tasks to support the super wealthy at the expense of exploiing and diminishing every program the allows the poor and misddle class to have opporunities for ...[text shortened]... tion, health and general well being?

I think its all ou GOP bliond zealots that need help.

Right wing zealots will always celebrate any item that dis-enfranchises the poor.

Its what the GOP is all about. Hate Americans and love the rich. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. What a vile disgusting lot you are. You should be in prison for treason.-badmoon

This is a irrational statement. This and other hate filled statements you have made recently regarding Republicans makes me truly question the state of your mental health.

Originally posted by badmoon
Obamacare is flawed due to its feckle leader. The mandate is strange but I support it vs having the entire structure fall. The status quo and its near and long term future is far worse.

The mandate is unnecessary; the idea that large amounts of people who can afford health insurance would refuse to buy it even with generous government subsidies to do so is flawed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Give me some figures on the number of unemployed who are ineligible for Medicaid. Then tell me why they are ineligible. Of course, Medicaid eligibility is expanded under the HRA; it will rise to incomes up to 133% of the poverty line.

People with incomes below the poverty line are exempted from the mandate. People who cannot find a pl ...[text shortened]... poor people will be effected by the mandate is BS (not that I support the mandate in any case).

Unemployed people may be ineligible based on assets even without income. I can see an unemployed person going without insurance rather than raiding his child's college fund.

Originally posted by sh76
Unemployed people may be ineligible based on assets even without income. I can see an unemployed person going without insurance rather than raiding his child's college fund.

The problem is, of course, that one shouldn't be required to build a college fund.