Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23562)	3/31/2012 2:29:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Saying that one will eventually inevitably end up in the health care market doesn't necessarily mean that one will end up in the health care insurance market. The argument conflates the two. Very good point. And while a strong, probably overwhelming majority will eventually be in the health care market it isn't 100%. And its far less than 100% if your only considering care that they couldn't possibly pay for themselves without any insurance or uncompensated care. And I know I'm getting slightly repetitive on this last point, but eventually entering market X, doesn't mean your in that market now.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23562)	3/31/2012 3:18:24 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>>> In my mind, those latter two are two different markets. The conflation of the two markets has been part of the agenda since the outset. And today, it is very common to hear commentators use the term "health care" interchangeably with "health insurance", when in fact, they're two different things. President Obama did the same frequently during his campaign and during the push for the legislation. Is it a conspiracy? I don't know, but I would guess so. It is a lot easier to appeal to the hearts of the compassionate by saying, "All Americans have a right to basic health care" than it is by saying "All Americans have a right to health insurance". They just aren't the same things, and I believe the Court is apt to find a difference between the two. But I don't agree that every person even enters into the "health care" market by their existence. While it is true that most or even substantially all people do require health care, I wonder whether the Court should take that approach? Surely, if one's Fifth Amendment rights are violated, for example, the Court would take that seriously. Why should the insistence that even ONE person who doesn't engage in commerce ought to be forced into transactions they don't want? It is not, IMO, irrational, for a 20-something who is healthy to choose not to purchase health insurance -- just as a value proposition. Insurance is, by definition, about diversification of risk, and if a person judges his risk to be minimal, he might well choose to assume that risk on his own, against his own present and, perhaps future, assets. Alito got to this point during his questions about forcing young people to buy burial insurance. I think this was some of the most intense questioning I heard; in the course of a page of the transcript, Alito got to the heart of the matter and shot down the SG's response a priori, leaving the SG to ramble in his response. He pointed out that the average insurance policy in 2016 will cost $5,800, yet, the average healthy individual might spend $854/year on health care. The difference, for these healthy people, is nothing more than a subsidy. Ginsburg replied, "Well, that is how insurance works", but insurance isn't about one person subsidizing another; it is about risk management. I think anyone who bothered to read these transcripts would come away wondering how the government even THINKS it has an argument.