McConnell Sets Plans For Full Repeal As Murkowski and Capito Stand In The Way

[bhsmte]

While I agree in wanting to keep those things, the insurance market would collapse very quickly if they did that.

I don't think it would collapse, they would just have to keep premiums at a level to account for it.

 

[Hank77]

My idea was to keep them as it'd provide enough votes to get rid of the rest of the crap, and then let them have a chance to move on to more pressing matters like tax reform before returning to it later. That's just me armchairing, though.



That's a terrible analogy. To begin with, there is a difference between the inherent powers of the state and what is allowed by the federal government via the constitution. Secondly, the insurance is only required in order to protect other drivers, hence the ability to purchase liability only. Finally, driving is optional and/or a privilege. Insurance is required to be in good standing with the US Government or you are fined.

Here's a piece that probably explains it better than I do:

Blog: Health insurance mandates vs. Auto liability requirements - a false analogy

The mandate is not a fine it's a tax, which the SCOTUS said is constitutional.

 

[Rion]

The mandate is not a fine it's a tax, which the SCOTUS said is constitutional.

They passed it as a fine, not a tax, and used such twisted logic to justify it that Kennedy, the moderate, was trying to get Roberts to come over to the naysayer side

 

[TLK Valentine]

They passed it as a fine, not a tax, and used such twisted logic to justify it that Kennedy, the moderate, was trying to get Roberts to come over to the naysayer side

Successfully... making your opinion on the matter rather moot.

 

[jayem]

Keep it until they come up with an alternative. In fact, I think they could keep it permanently if they actually started deregulating things a bit and brought in tort reform to not make doctor's insurance so insanely high. The practice of 'defensive medicine' is a huge problem for the industry.

Forbes also noted a survey by Jackson Healthcare, which is the third-largest health care staffing agency in the U.S. Based on their analytics, a stunning 75 percent of doctors claim that they order more tests and procedures that are not medically necessary for the sole purpose of avoiding lawsuits.

Did you read the article? Defensive medicine may account for $45 billion in additional health care spending. A good bit of money. But our total spending on health care is over $3 trillion. The article puts medical liability at 2.4% of health care costs. I guess it's not totally insignificant, but it's not a "huge" driver of expenses. It's a relative pittance. In 2015, hospital care accounted for 32%, physician and clinical services made up 20%, and prescription drugs were 10%. But drug prices were the fastest growing costs. Link. If government really wanted to control costs, pharmaceuticals would be a good target. Donald Trump campaigned on allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers for Part D coverage. This would be a great start. But so far, I haven't heard jack squat from him, or from Congressional Republicans on mitigating prescription drug costs.

And re. tort reform: The vast majority of medical liability cases are filed in state courts. Congress has no authority to dictate how states must handle their tort proceedings. Though Congress could possibly set guidelines for suits claiming damages from drugs and medical devices. These products are sold nationwide, and could fall under the interstate commerce clause. This would be similar to what Congress did to shield vaccine manufacturers.