decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Here is the real issue | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Here is the real issue
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT
Who's "we" if not the government? Who else can
solve it?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here is the real issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 06:13 PM EDT
But ... fixing it by government fiat is exactly what every country on the planet
does, and it is exactly what works everywhere on the planet.

You cannot use "the free market" to fix health care, because it simply
does not work the way simple-minded 19th century economics claims everything
works. Almighty supply and demand and competition does not work in health care.
Why? Because those simple minded ideas are founded on the concept that prices
and utility are SCALAR values. The are not. They are VECTORS. There IS NO

In the case of health care, competition simply does not decrease prices. It
RAISES prices. Costs and benefits are not just money and they are not scalars
and, for health care, 19th century economic models DO NOT WORK.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here is the real issue
Authored by: starsky on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 06:26 PM EDT
It's interesting, that in Australia we have a dual system of health, public and

private. We have both incentives and penalties in place for those earning
over a certain amount to take out insurance.
1 - The government subsidies private health insurance up to 30%, because
every person insured reduces the cost to the public purse, and
2 - The government taxes you 1% more on income tax ( or more) if you don't
take out cover. At 100k per annum, you are paying more in taxes than
decent insurance would cost.

They also have age incentives, if you don't have insurance by 30, the insurers
are allowed to charge more for each year you are uninsured, to prevent
people taking out insurance late in life.

It doesn't make us a socialist state, but it does seem to keep our health
system reasonably funded, and prevent abuse of the syste
In the end health care is not optional. We can't let people die in the gutter
because they are poor, or unlucky, or uneducated.

Our efforts are best served on how to afford care for all, and minimise

The government is essentially making individuals and insurers solve the
problem, as opposed to just nationalising the insurers.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here is the real issue
Authored by: charlie Turner on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 07:43 PM EDT
Over the years, I've owned several Italian Fiats. The idea of a US Government
Fiat is very scary. Sorry about the bad humor, I just couldn't resist. :)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here is the real issue
Authored by: Jeays on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 08:55 PM EDT
I have never seen an analysis of how much could be saved by simply doing away
with the health insurance industry, and going to single-payer. How many people
are employed doing what is essentially busy-work, and how much are they paid? To
switch to single-payer, all the government has to do is have the IRS adjust a
few percentages; the collection and enforcement mechanisms are already in place
and work well. I am sure the IRS would need a few more people, but nowhere near
as many as work in the industry at present. Is this a significant part of the
reason why the US spends about 13% of GDP on health care, and the other western
democracies spend about 7%?

Other businesses would benefit hugely by the whole problem of insurance for
employees being taken off their shoulders. Employees would be much freer to
switch jobs.

Nor is there ever a discussion on the impact on the economy of putting all those
health-insurance people out of work. I imagine it would be severe, but I have
never seen it quantified.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here is the real issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 30 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT
I don't think it is ridiculous. It is better than doing nothing, and quite a bit
better than what Romney is proposing: although light on details, his plan would
leave a lot more Americans still uninsured. And it possibly paves the way for a
better solution down the road. The state of Vermont is already making plans to
implement a single-payer plan under the general fabric of the ACA, for example.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Enough already
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 01 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
Can the ObamaCare discussion please be asked to leave?

1) It's a pure US issue
2) It's political

I'm sure there are hundreds of other forums where this divisive issue can be
argued forth and back. Please take the discussion there...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A question from an outsider
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 07:02 AM EDT
I hope I am wrong but it seems to me that some people in the US have an abiding
hatred of their own people and anything which would improve their lot - why?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Here is the real issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 01:44 PM EDT
All insurance works that way, if you think about it.
No, YOU need to think about it. Insurance companies are private. They may be making 99% profit. We'll never know. And we're passing trillion dollar legislature to force ourselves to give insurance companies even more money. We're so friggin stupid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )