Well, besides the fact that it is a restriction of liberty…
And beyond the reasoning that, since government has demonstrated its ability to control commerce in this, insurance companies, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, etc. would lobby government to enact regulations, mandates, and other interventions that would restrict competition…
The only other major flaw I can think of off the top of my head is the nature of what is referred to as health insurance. It’s actually not so much insurance as it is pre-payment. If everyone has it, everyone will constantly demand more and more services, ie they will go to the doctor for every little tickle in their throat. They would do this out of the natural idea of maximizing gain/minimizing loss. They will want to get the most for what they pay for. Ultimately, supply may not be able to meet demand. Which would lead to some form of rationing. Rationing would make the good or service more valued, thus leading to higher prices, right?
Healthcare inflation is due to productivity differentials (labor intensive sectors see cost increases on top of wage growth) and was just was fast before the government healthcare programs. Problem is, inequality has increased a lot and middle class families (or what’s left of the middle class after manufacturing was outsourced) can’t afford the same standard of living.
Excess inflation in healthcare:
But anyway, ignore these facts, back to the thread.
Now, we’re getting into other political variables. It’s likely the companies would try to setup an oligopoly. However, let’s assume there was free access for suppliers, no shenanigans.
Isn’t the care already rationed by the price of the insurance plan? The demand for medical service is also further limited by the maximum yearly disbursement from the insurance company. Certainly, it’s not unlimited, and the customers would have to be judicious in using the insurance.
I cannot seem to understand how forcing everyone to buy a service, let alone one with the issues that health insurance as a form of pre-pay has, won’t lead to an ever increasing demand, which ultimately leads to a supply that perpetual fails to have the ability to match or overcome demand could lead to a reduction in prices. I might not be seeing it from all angles though.
However, another issue is, brought up by Bastiat, that which is seen and that which is not seen. While its easy to see that everyone would have health insurance, it is not seen what some of that capital may have gone on to flow if individuals were left to only voluntary exchange. This is why the restriction of liberty is much more than a political issue. At its core, it’s an economic issue. Less choice on what one can spend one’s money on in the free markets ultimately leads to a reduction in production and efficiency, which equals a lower standard of living.
Consider, under the mandate, a man who will go on to never need any sort of medical treatment or advice except the occasional aspirin or antacid, is forced to pay for a service that he does not need or want. Maybe, if left up to his judgement, he would have taken the risk of forgoing health insurance, not knowing he would be fortunate enough to never need it, and instead used his saved capital for anything else. You would never see the growth possible because he would not have been given the choice to use his capital as he pleased. Liberty is very important to economic prosperity.
What is “Healthcare inflation?” I know that inflation is an increase in the supply of money, but can’t seem to wrap my head around what you are referring to. Thanks in advance!
I take it you were responding to me, thanks. There that seems to be the exact contradiction - how can these people think that makes any sense?
I quote: "The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”
I’m pretty sure they even say the words “shall” and “penalty” were deliberate on the part of congress to set it apart from a tax. Since the SCOTUS doesn’t have the power to change that wording, the alternative argument is exactly what would make the whole individual mandate part unable to be considered in the first place. Isn’t the fact that the mandate could be considered by the court what made the tax argument null from the beginning? I think so.
“States — because they don’t have to expand their Medicaid programs — can block half of Obamacare’s new entitlement spending that way. If states refuse to create a health insurance exchange, then they can block the other half of Obamacare new entitlement spending. So states are really in the driver seat here. They can effectively stop the new spending under this law just by refusing to create an exchange and refusing to expand their Medicaid programs.”
i actually like that it passed. now when everyone sees how shitty things will get, they will look at the government a second time and pause to think what its doing.
cant live in normality for long now can we?
the government always uses and abuses the courts to rule constitutional what is supposed to be unconstitutional.
I like the comment by Roger Pilon in the video JJ posted. If this is a tax, what kind tax is it? Not an income tax, nor a duty, nor and excise, nor an impost… Nor is this “tax” going to be levied uniformly throughout the union.
“Further, if everyone has insurance this will lead to an increase in demand for health careservice providers. This will attract more health care service providers and will allow for more competition through the increased supply.”
That sentence is the flaw in your reasoning. I can tell you from experience that insurance companies do not reimburse based on the supply and demand of healthcare providers. There is a reason physicians don’t take Medicare and Medicaid. There is a reason Walgreens parted ways with Express Scripts, the 2nd largest PBM in the country. There will in fact be an increase in demand for healthcare sevices, there just will not be any incentive for an increase in the supply of providers.
In fact, there is incentive to leave the health care profession. There is the paperwork, audits, regulations, etc… that comes from this monster. Electronic medical records are very expensive. Refusal to reimburse hospitals if patients are admitted for a second time, even if they refuse to take their prescribed medications. The list goes on and on.
That quote was from shackleford, not me. In several of my responses to him, I mentioned that it would lead to an ever-increasing demand that would not likely be met by supply. That is, I am in agreement with you.
I apologize if I somehow gave the impression that I believe ObamaCare (or anything besides free markets) could provide lower costs, higher quality, or greater availability. I do not.
For the record, I am a believer in truly free markets and reject the initiation of force.
The whole issue is sad. Obama care is doomed to failure. The fact that it prevents any ability to deny for preexisting conditions while still putting private funds on the line in the health insurance industry means that either the cost is going to go through the roof in order to cover costs, or the entire insurance industry isn’t going to be able to pay out its liabilities and it will fail as people switch from the lowest possible coverage to the highest available package the moment that they become ill. One or the other must happen so long as the federal government doesn’t directly pay for the healthcare of the average person in some way, be it by outright nationalization or through a radical expansion of medcaid/care or the pre-existing conditions aspect is torn down.
The really sad part about it is that no one was even made happy by the law. The democrats wanted more, particularly the public option, while the republicans wanted less. At any rate, at least it might bring us back on track to the possibility of real reform if it finally is enacted.
