State's Lawsuit Against Healthcare Reform Goes Forward

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"Driving is seen as an option and engaging in the activity is what triggers entry into the regulatory environment. However, under PPACA, an individual needs not engage in any activity that might be considered commerce, yet still be compelled to buy insurance coverage. This is the constitutional rub."

Are you seriously trying to tell me utilization of the medical system is not commerce? Then no one should care when the uninsured use emergency rooms for common ailments and minor injuries, right? I mean, after all it's not "commerce" so it doesn't really cost us anything---correct?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Consider this in the context of the commerce clause. If I am engaging in commerce, I'm purchasing or selling something. If that activity crosses state lines, it falls under the commerce clause and is subject to regulation.

An element of the PPACA requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The government is relying on the powers granted to is under the commerce clause as the authority that can compel individuals to purchase health insurance.

The question raised in the lawsuit is whether or not the government has such power under the commerce clause. In other words, if I'm not engaging in any commerce at all - not sick, not seeing a doctor, not taking any medication at all - can the government compel me to engage in commerce by buying insurance?

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"That a part of the issue, but its a relatively small part of the issue. Its simple supply and demand that is largely responsible driving up costs in the healthcare arena."

Really? At double % digits annually? Don't buy it.

Here's the documentation of it. Do with it what you will, but we've been seeing similar data every year for years. Note that this survey reports on trend data, which is a measure of what insurance carriers are actually paying for claims: the cost of medical care for subscribers.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

The question raised in the lawsuit is whether or not the government has such power under the commerce clause. In other words, if I'm not engaging in any commerce at all - not sick, not seeing a doctor, not taking any medication at all - can the government compel me to engage in commerce by buying insurance?



Here's the documentation of it. Do with it what you will, but we've been seeing similar data every year for years. Note that this survey reports on trend data, which is a measure of what insurance carriers are actually paying for claims: the cost of medical care for subscribers.

Then when you do get sick is the government under any obligation to treat you? Currently hospitals must treat anyone who comes in the door, such as cyclists too stupid to wear headgear, or motorists without seatbelts. I will go along with this idea if such people are 'completely' on their own. I take no prescription drugs yet I carry insurance.

Your Segal paper ends by stating that forecasting what effect PPCA will have is unclear. As to supply and demand - bull puckey. Novartis has increase their prices at double didgits yearly since 2004 (when my wife started taking Lotrel) yet our discount card cuts the $545 three month figure to $406 - how is that possible if they are not simply gouging? Sorry, but your argument has more holes than a ciollander.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

The question raised in the lawsuit is whether or not the government has such power under the commerce clause. In other words, if I'm not engaging in any commerce at all - not sick, not seeing a doctor, not taking any medication at all - can the government compel me to engage in commerce by buying insurance?



Here's the documentation of it. Do with it what you will, but we've been seeing similar data every year for years. Note that this survey reports on trend data, which is a measure of what insurance carriers are actually paying for claims: the cost of medical care for subscribers.

Then when you do get sick is the government under any obligation to treat you? Currently hospitals must treat anyone who comes in the door, such as cyclists too stupid to wear headgear, or motorists without seatbelts. I will go along with this idea if such people are 'completely' on their own. I take no prescription drugs yet I carry insurance.

Your Segal paper ends by stating that forecasting what effect PPCA will have is unclear. As to supply and demand - bull puckey. Novartis has increase their prices at double didgits yearly since 2004 (when my wife started taking Lotrel) yet our discount card cuts the $545 three month figure to $406 - how is that possible if they are not simply gouging? Sorry, but your argument has more holes than a collander.

[noonereal]

it's just ashame that we pass legislation and the traiotrs on the right could care less about what is best for the country

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Sorry, but your argument has more holes than a ciollander.

I've not seen documentation of "gouging", other than anecdotal evidence. I'm sure that if such evidence existed, Congress would be all over it, as they often do when the price of gas goes up, and haul the oil company execs up to congress to testify.

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

traiotrs on the right

How does disagreeing with PPACA make on a "traitor"?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

How does disagreeing with PPACA make on a "traitor"?

It doesn't.

But, I would say that trashing the entire bill, as I understand the Tea Party wants to do, rather than trying to clean it up and tweak it, (For lack of a better word.), is a shame. Especially when one considers the fact that some of the key elements came from their side of the aisle.

Other ideas I've heard coming from the right are, IMHO,--shit. The type of ideas that negate the entire purpose of having insurance in the first place.
Kind of like putting SS on the stock market. (But, I shall refrain from diverting this thread away from the OP with that argument.)

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

It doesn't.

But, I would say that trashing the entire bill, as I understand the Tea Party wants to do, rather than trying to clean it up and tweak it, (For lack of a better word.), is a shame. Especially when one considers the fact that some of the key elements came from their side of the aisle.

What elements are you referring to?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

I've not seen documentation of "gouging", other than anecdotal evidence. I'm sure that if such evidence existed, Congress would be all over it, as they often do when the price of gas goes up, and haul the oil company execs up to congress to testify.

I am not about to scan the receipts, but a 90 day supply of Lotrel in May of 2007 was $351.64, in Oct 2010 that same supply was $543.99. In the intervening years inflation has run somewhere in the region of 3%. The difference is $192.35 or more than 50%. So splain me dat.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I am not about to scan the receipts, but a 90 day supply of Lotrel in May of 2007 was $351.64, in Oct 2010 that same supply was $543.99. In the intervening years inflation has run somewhere in the region of 3%. The difference is $192.35 or more than 50%. So splain me dat.

Nowhere near enough info here, but here are some guesses: What drug plan are you on? Has their coverage of the brand name drug Lotrel been reduced now that generic alternatives are on the market, which might be covered for less money out of pocket? Are you using your drug plan's preferred pharmacy supplier?