Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled that this clause includes regulation of interstate commerce. I think the position of those in favor of this bill will be that healthcare is over 1/6th of US commerce and practiced between the States and therefore the activities can be regulated and taxed by the Federal Goverment.
|
They aren't taxing the use of healthcare across states. They are taxing you NOT using it. That's called a fine.
---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
The biggest problem is that there is no reason to believe the cost of services will go down. Second biggest is that it disincentivizes medical professionals, which may reduce supply while increasing demand.
I had my own ideas for improving access and lowering costs but no one ever listens to me.
|
Let's assume that 32 million people are actually uninsured and have never received healthcare. Now they can go to the doctor because they are finally insured - there is now a 11-12% increase in demand on doctors and these patients are in the lowest paying, most fraudulent bracket of the paying spectrum.
If I'm a 60 to 65 year old doctor, I retire. So now, the remaining doctors have > 11-12% increase in patient load in the least paying bracket. The doctors become even more overworked, get to spend less time with each individual patient, and get paid less.
That does not seem like a recipe for improved quality of care - oh, except for those 32 million voters. "General Welfare", indeed.