How Free is our Free Market?
Free Market: an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. *Dictionary.com (2012)
The American Economy is based on a free market economy. Some know this system better as Capitalism. A system that depends on free choice and profit motive. As you most likely know, our country is not a pure capitalistic economy. Most people agree that there has to be a place for a role of the government in most market economies. Where individuals may disagree is the degree of government intervention in this type of economy.
The US Supreme Court is set to rule, as early as today, on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While this law is comprehensive and confusing in nature the basic issue at hand is rather simple. The Supreme Court is considering the Constitutionality of federal legislation that mandates the purchase of a private good (Health insurance in this case). The law, as written, will go into affect in 2014 and requires all Americans to have health care coverage or pay a fine. The law also states that insurance companies can not deny potential customers insurance coverage based on preexisting conditions (as was typicall prior to the law). Many believe that individuals should retain the right to choose medical coverage while others believe that it is important for ALL Americans to have health care (simliar to public education).
After reading the provided links consider and respond to the questions below. Please remember that we are looking for responses that are based on both your opinion and the links provided. ENJOY!
At what point is it necessary for the government to intervene in a free market economy? In your opinion, is it Constitutional for the federal government to take this step? Explain.
In your opinion will this legislation improve the health care industry and access to health care for most Americans?
What implications, if any, does this policy have on the free market for other consumer items
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8270-2.pdf - Guide to the Supreme Court’s Review
http://familydoctormag.com/doctors-office/1291-obamas-health-care-plan-doctors-debate-pros-and-cons.html Basic Pro/Con Considerations
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act - Comparison to historical laws requiring certain products
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/16/20120616PNI0616-wir-obama-health-care-law-supreme-court-ruling-possible-outcomes.html - Possible effects of the Pending Supreme Court decision
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/washington-state-provides-case-study-on-effects-of-heath-care-reform/2012/06/16/gJQAgYl7hV_story.html - Case Study on similar policy in the past
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abdulrahman-m-elsayed/health-care-market_b_1405396.html - Reasons a Free Market Health Care system is not more efficient
Vilfredo Pareto theorized that it is impossible to improve anyone's condition without making at least one other person worse off. The Affordable Care Act has the ability to improve the lives of many uninsured Americans, but it will- as was stated by Healthcare Finance News- cost money, create some chaos, and perhaps even cut existing health care. Despite these drawbacks, I believe that the legislation will create more good than bad.
ReplyDeleteDoctor O'Shea's argument seems to be based on the idea that government-provided healthcare options are inferior to those which one pays for. If this is true, it is merely because of the current inefficiencies of America's health-care system. These cannot be fixed until reform has begun.
This is why, when a problem such as America's inefficient health care systen is isolated, it is necessary that the government intervene. This is constitutional for many reasons. Some of the provisions are already in use. Medicaid exists universally and in most states companies cannot refuse coverage to children despite preexisting conditions.
Finally, all parts of the law should survive. Washington's predicament proves that this sort of change can easily become either a help or a hindrance to an economy. If properly enacted, it could boost the whole economy. If not, it could easily disintegrate the rich pyramid of the medical industry.
Bonnie,
DeleteThanks for your response. You did answer all questions and used the provided sources to support your statements, however I feel that you stopped short of fully explaining your positions. In what ways do you feel the legislation will "create more good than bad" and what are the "many reasons" you believe that mandating the purchae of insurance is constitutional? Finally what would be the "properly enacted" measures that could boost the economy. Please take some time to expand on your thoughtful response.
Thank you.
Bonni- I am still a little confused as to why you believe in the constitutionality of the ACA. I agree however that all parts of it should remain intact if it is to be utilized; each part simply cannot function without the other.
DeleteI agree that it should have been better thought out. I've been busy lately and I have limited access to the internet, so I rushed my response somewhat.
DeleteTo expand:
The ACA is constitutional for a few reasons. The interstate portion of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause of the constitution allow congress broad power to regulate the economy. Thus congress has the ability to enact laws which may greatly affect the US market. Also, congress is allowed to create taxes, so the tax on those who do not have health care is also constitutional.
As stated in the AZ Central article, there are currently more than 50 million uninsured Americans. This legislation would give them the resources and motivation to become insured. This would guarantee equal health care and begin the movement towards a health care system equitable with other countries.
According to the Commonwealth Fund's 2010 report- I hope we are allowed to cite other sources- the US has the most expensive health care system world wide. When its quality, access, efficiency, equity, and general health is compared to Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and England, it rates last. The ACA should at least address the problems related to access and equity. My hope is that it will "create more good than bad" by instigating a larger reform. The money the US spends on health care will increase and the health care market will shift, but hopefully better quality and more efficient health care will emerge from the chaos. Even this uncertain outcome is better than the current stagnation.
It may not have been well stated, but by "properly enacted" I simply meant enacted with all parts still present.
Ahhh I see what you're saying. I like what you said about the uncertain outcome being better than stagnation- that's a very valid viewpoint. I suppose it is the money issue that is still throwing me off, and I'm still not so sure that it's constitutional in my mind (though I definitely see your point now).
DeleteI'm glad I was able to clarify it!
DeleteIn a free market economy businesses are allowed to determine their own prices and wages without government interference. The point where the government should intervene in a free market economy is when certain businessses or major companies ae in jeopardy. As seen in Washington state's expeience with health care reform in the 1990's, it is evident that regulating health care without governement intervention will lead to a company's failure due to more and more healthy people not purchasing packages. The government then intervened and still required most of the people to have health insurance, but only the sickest applicants would be eligable for immediate coverage. Government intevention is needed in a situation such as this to keep the companies going and citizens insured.
ReplyDeleteWhen the question of constitutionality of the government to make these madates, it is clear that it is constitutional. Even the founding fathers had mandates of their own and never had to question if they were or were not constitutional.
In my opinion, this legislation will be able to provide health care access to most Americans, but will not improve the health care industy. If anything it will lessen the quality of health care for the people. With people coming from many different financial backgrounds and require the same health services as every one else, the cost for health insurance will have to drop and the drop in funding will lessen the quality of the services.
This policy could also effect medical goods in the free market. The need for medical goods will increase and create more profit for these companies as well.
Nathan,
DeleteThe legislation that was passed in Washington was intended to fix a health care system in which citizens of the state of Washington were underinsured or not insured at all. The government interference was not necessarily to save the businesses but to correct a market in which the product in questions (health care coverage) was out of reach for many customers. I agree with you in that government intervention is important in some case such as this, but do you think it should be the federal government or individual state governments that take the steps to regulate markets such as this one?
Unless the legislation requires insurance companies to keep the price of the insurance at a minimum it does not seem that the insurance companies themselves will keep prices low when they know that customers have to have the product, don't you think?
Oh, my mistake. I believe that it should be the federal governments duty to take the steps to regulate markets such as this to keep the insurance packages and prices constant everywhere in the country. And you are absolutely right about that, legislation will control the prices of the insurance companies, not the companies themselves.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are situations where the government needs to intervene in a free market economy to prevent abuse and corruption. When people are getting hurt, it is necessary for the government to intervene. The federal government needs to take action when insurance companies take advantage of people who need health care coverage the most. I believe that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, because in the end it is helping the people. Some argue that purchase mandates are unconstitutional, but this argument is discredited by the fact that in our nation’s history there are numerous examples of implemented purchase mandates. The makers of the constitution have been involved in these purchase mandates, showing that they do not find them unconstitutional. Without the individual mandate, the ACA will not be able to function properly and will not accomplish its purpose. I believe that the individual mandate is an important part of the ACA and those that claim it is unconstitutional are not worried about the constitution at all, but about the extra cash in their pockets.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ACA will improve the health care industry and access to health care for most Americans. In the present system not everyone has access to healthcare coverage. This legislation will allow everyone a healthcare plan, even those who have preexisting conditions. I have a little brother with Down syndrome and because of that; he is not eligible for health insurance. Health care should be a basic human right, not a privilege. The ACA’s easy access to healthcare coverage will prevent people from being overcome with costly medical bills. The individual mandate will prevent the healthcare system from deterioration, and will allow people to have confidence in the healthcare system. All parts of the ACA are equally important, because without the individual mandate, insurance companies won’t have the means to provide for their sick clients, and people will take advantage of the system. The individual mandate prevents people from signing up for health insurance only when they really need it. If everyone were to do this, insurance companies would quickly go bankrupt and the whole system would fall apart. The amended Medicaid program makes this insurance affordable for everyone. The restrictions that the ACA will put on insurance companies will protect people from money hungry corporations. More people will be open to signing up for health care because of the new cost saving measures involved. Insurance companies will be limited in their ability to raise prices and will not be able to discriminate in the cost of their coverage.
This policy may reaffirm the idea that the government has the right to intervene in American business. If successful, the ACA could be a predictor for future government programs and involvement in the economy. Some may not like where the ACA is headed, but I think that it will be beneficial to all involved and will greatly improve the health care system. Nothing is perfect, and I think that the Affordable Care Act is as close as we can get.
I agree that it is important for the federal government to get involved when people are being taken advantage of. I also like how you mentioned that purchase mandates have been implemented throughout history. I found it interesting that some of the founding fathers like George Washington were involved in the passage of purchase mandates. It is always beneficial to find historical evidence to prove a point and this is a pretty solid point.
DeleteI agree that the idea of universal health care for everyone is great, but the question is if we have the money to do so. And yes, the mandate would be necessary for this system to work and is historically evident that it is perfectly fine to do.
DeleteThe government should intervene in the free market economy as minimally as possible. That is after all, the purpose of a free market economy. When the government gets involved by trying to control everything, money is spent, oftentimes in ways the public doesn't truly understand. Then the government must find a source of money to replace all the money they just spent trying to save whatever industry from crashing and burning. Is that really beneficial for anyone?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I do not believe the the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. In particular, the individual mandate disturbs me most. Why isn't it our choice whether to purchase or not? The commerce clause does not appear to allow for forcing people to enter the "stream of commerce," the necessary and proper clause is incredibly vague and has been manipulated and stretched throughout US history to fit nearly any Congress "fix," and the penalty for not buying health insurance certainly does not appear to be a "tax" that would fall under the taxing power.
Sure, this legislation would increase access to health care by most Americans, but at what price? More does not necessarily equal better quality, and those who already have good health insurance will be at a disadvantage. Obviously, you cannot extend coverage to all people without limits and provide aid without a large general population fueling the insurance companies' finances. It seems like the government is valuing the moral of helping those in need over the right of freedom. The last time I checked, the power of the American government is that is provides the opportunity to work hard enough to reach any class you choose freely.
I also believe that one part of the ACA cannot function without the other. You cannot logically increase the amount of people receiving medical treatment without even more healthy people buying into insurance to pay the costs. If people are not forced to buy, they won't if prices rise too high, which would happen if only those afflicted with illness bought into insurance. Also, if the Medicaid expansion was done away with, there doesn't seem much point in an individual mandate.
There are always implications when legislation is passed. The Supreme Court giving the OK to purchase mandates will surely lead to more government infringements on people's personal rights. What the government labels as good for us and moral or what it chooses as an industry that needs reform shouldn't have any bearing on our own decisions as an individual. In fact, all the propaganda surrounding the ACA seems like a ploy to get the less educated to hop on board with the legislation from a "help the sick" standpoint. This view completely disregards the facts of the situation.
The statement I agree with most out of all of these sources is the last sentence of the con argument in the second link, "Ultimately, the goal of real reform should be for the government to stop trying to design and operate public health-insurance plans and instead focus on providing disadvantaged individuals with the necessary funds to buy into the same system that everyone else uses." That truly seems to be the heart of the matter.
***On a little side note, I find the argument that purchase mandates have been found constitutional and supported by framers in the past utterly irrelevant. There are many acts that had been found constitutional which were later declared unconstitutional. Also, there are many different interpretations of the Constitution and it certainly is interpreted in a different manner in modern times than the time in which it was created (isn't that what all this hubbub is about anyway?). Debating the framers' intentions or lack thereof does not help anyone currently whatsoever.
I agree exactly with you when you say that more coverage does not result in better quality coverage. People who are currently paying for their health care will lose discounts. In on eof the articles, it said that the average of discounts lost would be about $600. It benefits the poorer population in that they will recieve health care, but health care standards will be lowered for those who currently have health care plans. I also think the quote you have about the goal of reform perfectly sums up what America needs. That way, no one has to lower their standards to find a happy medium with those who have no health care. I also see your point about purchase mandates passed throughout history. I am still not sure which view I really support in this case, but it is important that you pointed out that many acts were later declared unconstitutional and modern times are different.
DeleteI agree with your side note about the irrelevancy of the purchase mandates. I did not feel that the article completely applied to our struggles today. The 1700's are very different from current days and though seamen were required to purchase health insurance, it was still their choice and it was part of their job. They still held the option to simply quit and find a different job.
Delete-Kaila Hammon
Jackie- Honestly, I'm still not educated enough to form a true opinion either, but something just seems off to me in the logic of it all.
DeleteAlexis- That is very true! They could always quit. However, if we are forced to pay either way, we're being penalized for no reason. Not to mention, seamen had dangerous jobs.
I will admit that this is a very well thought out response. However, I can not help but feel that- in response to "More does not necessarily equal better quality"- the slight improvement of covering all citizens is better than our current stagnation. I also hope that being educated doesn't mean that one must ignore morality. Health care isn't just about "help[ing] the sick." It's about helping and educating those who are healthy so that they won't become sick or, when they do, they won't be rejected because they can't afford care or they didn't expect the sudden change in their fortunes.
DeleteBonni- I see your viewpoint for sure about covering all citizens, and I did not mean to imply that educated people do not have morals. I was trying to address the fact that in today's day and age, many less educated people will simply jump on the bandwagon because politics paints things in black and white (helping the poor vs hurting the poor) to make you want to side with certain bills or acts.
DeleteIn response to your second part, I also agree that health care is about helping and educating the healthy. My concern with the ACA is that it will drive up the costs of health care or lead to less effective health care for those who already have it. I suppose it's kind of a "greater good" debate.
Here is an intereting article from a Washington Post Columnist: Robert Jacob Samuelson
Deletehttp://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/robert_j_samuelson/robert-j-samuelson-obamacare-shows-president-s-poor-judgment/article_14e94758-037d-5acb-b3ff-10afad31548b.html
This article was published yesterday and may provide some points that have not been brought up in the discussion yet.
I agree with your entire argument, but especially the paragraph about the access of health care. The price of this high accessibility, in my opinion, won't be worth it. I also agree with your side note. Things have changed since those times and I'm glad someone pointed it out.
DeleteThat's all very true, Sam. And your "greater good" point is what I was trying to imply with the beginning of my original post.
DeleteThe article was, indeed, quite interesting. I simply hope someone will quote it so I can try my hand at rebuking the points stated therein.
I appreciate the quality of your reasoning, but I think you're overlooking some of the facts.
Delete"The commerce clause does not appear to allow for forcing people to enter the 'stream of commerce,'..."
The Commerce Clause does, in fact, cover inactivity.
"the necessary and proper clause is incredibly vague and has been manipulated and stretched throughout US history to fit nearly any Congress 'fix,'..."
You say that like it's a bad thing, but really, it's called precedence. Supporters of the bill do feel that it is a necessary and proper way to fix health care.
"More does not necessarily equal better quality..."
The PPACA includes a provision for exactly this concern. Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of care, rather than how many patients they can see. Furthermore, it merely mandates that people have insurance, not what quality they choose.
"In fact, all the propaganda surrounding the ACA seems like a ploy to get the less educated to hop on board with the legislation from a 'help the sick' standpoint. This view completely disregards the facts of the situation."
How so? You yourself have admitted that the sick and injured will be better off for this act; it's the people who don't strictly need health insurance who, arguably, are slighted.
"I find the argument that purchase mandates have been found constitutional and supported by framers in the past utterly irrelevant."
I agree.
Trace- Why thank you, I appreciate your reasoning as well.
DeleteIn regards to the commerce clause, the first source seems to imply that whether or not it covers inactivity is questionable. At least that's how I interpreted it; perhaps I misunderstood.
Indeed, the necessary and proper clause is meant to be able to allow great things. However, people can say anything is "necessary and proper" and claim it is constitutional, can they not? The opposition will say it's not necessary and proper just as much as the supporters say it IS necessary and proper.
Indeed, the mandate applies simply to having insurance. My point was that if everyone simply gets the bare minimum, is that really good health care? And will those who already have health care see a price increase, therefore making them buy a lesser quality?
I mean that the "help the sick" message is making it seem to the public like it's this reform option or none at all. It paints it black and white. Will the sick really be helped? No one will know until the act is put into place.
And thanks for agreeing on that last point xD
I think it is important for the federal government to intervene whenever people are being taken advantage of, BUT this goes against the definition of a free market economy. The whole point of a free market economy is that the government is NOT involved. To be honest, I am still unsure whether the ACA is constitutional or not. While there have been mandates in the past, these were different circumstances and different times. I also question whether certain fabrications have come into play that allows the ACA to fall under the category of “constitutional.”
ReplyDeleteI think that, while this program will allow health care to be more accessible, it does not exactly ensure an improved health care industry, overall. Currently, an individual’s access to health care depends on what they can afford. Obama has proposed that a happy medium is created. Everyone would receive a basic level of health care. This benefits the poorer individuals, but lowers the standards of health care for those individuals who already have health care. One article stated that those Medicare patients with high prescription drug costs would lose discounts of an average of $600. Like Sam said, the most efficient system would be one in which individuals without health care are given “necessary funds to buy into the same system that everyone else uses.” I think this predicament will give the government an idea of when and how to intervene with the free market in the future.
I agree with your first paragraph about the government protecting people but that it goes against the idea of a free market economy. Our beliefs as society often contradict each other. Everyone wants to be economically protected by the government but very few want the government involved in our daily lives. It seems since the beginning of our nation's independence, our dependency on the government has grown.
Delete-Kaila Hammon
I agree with you second paagraph. ACA has the potential to lessen the quality of the healthcare system by bringing down the standards of individuals who already have healthcare to provide for poorer individuals.
DeleteI believe that the idea that everyone will only recieve basic health care is incorrect. Afterall, everyone is required to have basic automobile coverage, but there are still varying levels of insurance available. These are by no means impossible to afford simply because everyone has to have the basic package.
DeleteI agree with your second paragraph. Government-regulated health care limits the options, and could potentially lower the standard of health care, which is sketchy. I liked the quote that you used to explain an alternative to the health care debate. However, it could cost the government a large sum of money, don't you think?
DeleteAndrea, that is the main issue, money! That's what is holding us back but the concept is heading in the right direction.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteObama's health care reform has been a hot topic amongst many Americans the past countless months. Debates have been fought and opinions have been printed but neither expressive behavior solves the issue that continues to swarm citizens about the proposed plan.
ReplyDeleteI think the government should intervene in free market economy when a business is operating unfairly and acting corrupt such as manipulating people, products, and business or violating laws. I believe it is constitutional for a government to take aggressive steps to protect American citizens and the basic foundation of capitalism.
I do not think the ACA will improve the health care industry. The health care reform is not creating jobs for people nor is it creating more or newer businesses. In fact, it could potentially ruin any new or unstable business. The only way it could improve the health care industry is mandating new customers for any business strong enough to survive future changes and new laws. However, I do think it will provide more access for most Americans. The new bill will make it possible for every American to have health insurance without being denied based on any pre-existing conditions. (AZcentral)
With the ACA plan, the government will be playing a huge role in our free market. The government will be able to influence the way Americans make the private purchases of healthcare. Also, if the healthcare plan passes, the government will be more able to control healthcare businesses. As stated in the Huffington Post, “Insurance companies exist because some people get sick, but they make money because some people don't. So they want the healthiest people to buy their plans, even though the sickest people need them most.” No matter how terrible this process may seem, it’s just the way health insurance works. But this business process won’t work efficiently in a free market economy if the ACA plan comes into effect. Everyone, no matter their health condition will have insurance which can either improve health insurance companies or create great losses.
-Kaila Hammon
I understand your worry that the ACA could put health insurance companies out of business, but you seem to be overlooking the individual mandate. Many healthy individuals currently do not have health insurance because they are healthy or they can't afford it. The ACA will make it so that these people have the motivation and access needed to get health insurance. This will increase the demand for health care, thus making up for the forced coverage of those with preexisting conditions.
DeleteWhile I understand where you are coming from Bonni, I feel as though the ACA will harm health care rather then help it. With the government controlling the health care, it will be more generalized and less specific to the needs of those who have medical conditions. I agree with you Kaila when you said that ACA will not be creating jobs or businesses. Why start this new health care bill when our economy is already suffering as it is?
DeleteI don't understand how this bill can make health care for those with medical conditions worse, when people with preexisting medical conditions can't even get insurance. Thus they either have to leave their conditions untreated until they end up in the hospital or they loose everything they have paying for their own treatment.
DeleteCapitalism only applies well where the principals of supply and demand apply. In health care, however, demand does not react to the market like in most industries. People do not choose to become sick, and that demand doesn't change no matter how large or small the supply. Since we can't just throw health care into the free market, the government must intervene to make it viable.
ReplyDeleteWith the current free market system, insurers make money only because people buy their services, but remain healthy and don't use them. These healthy people bring profit, but the sick and injured who need insurance drain profit. It stands to reason that insurers would try to minimize the amount of people who use their service, and maximize the amount of people who buy it anyway. The government must fix both of those behaviors, and, with the ACA, it does so by forcing insurers to insure the sick, and forcing the healthy to buy.
I doubt that this will affect other consumer items, because politicians generally are not stupid. They will apply capitalism where it works, and only intervene where it doesn't.
Your response is indeed very logical and gets to the heart of the business side of it all. However, do you believe the ACA is constitutional? If so, why do you think this?
DeleteIt's impossible to say that the Commerce Clause doesn't give congress the right to enact most mandates of the ACA, but one has to cite the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the individual mandate. Which means that while the ACA is constitutionally justifiable, the Supreme Court decision is going to come down to the opinions of the individual justices, rather than any fool-proof legal argument.
DeleteJust so I understand, you're saying that because the Commerce Clause does not specifically mention inactivity, that a point cannot be proven one way or the other?
DeleteI do agree it tends to come down to the justices in wishy washy scenarios such as these.
Basically, yeah. Judge Moon made a good when he upheld the law, saying, "Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance." Furthermore, the Necessary and Proper Clause is intentionally vague, and its application always comes to personal opinion and interpretation. I think I've explained in my initial post why I feel that the ACA qualifies, but it's possible for others to simply disagree.
DeleteThat said, I have no doubt that the law would make our country a better place.
I understand your opinion, and you are entitled to it as much as anyone else :) I'm not really a politics person anyhow; I just argue for the sake of arguing sometimes.
DeleteI think that it is necessary for government to intervene in the economy if its people are suffering at the hand of unregulated corporations. Such is the case when people with pre-existing conditions are denied health insurance and are, in a sense, sentenced to death. Because to force insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions would undoubtedly cost them money and perhaps put many companies out of business, healthy people must also buy insurance for the companies to turn a profit. Future ailments and injuries are impossible to fortell, so it would be prudent for eveybody to have health insurance anyway. Also, with the Medicaid extensions the ACA provides for, many people who previously couldn't afford health insurance will be able to have access to it, assuming the Act goes into effect. All of this would greatly improve the healthcare industry.
ReplyDeleteAs for the constitutionality of the Act (and the most disputed provision: the individual mandate), Congress has power over interstate commerce, and the Constitution does not distinguish between economic activity and inactivity (according to the first source), so either Congress should have power over both, or the Constitution should be amended. Also, according to "The New Republic," some of the framers of the Constitution passed similar mandates in their own time, such as a law requiring seamen to buy health insurance. In addition, Congress has control over taxes, and the penalty for not cooperating with the individual mandate is a tax, as the Guide to the Supreme Court's Review points out.
I don't believe the enactment of the ACA would have large implications for other consumer items. After all, auto insurance and education are mandated. El-Sayed of "The Huffington Post" makes a compelling argument that healthcare should not be a part of the free market economy because, ultimately, the people who need healthcare most are denied it. The same cannot be said for most other necessary consumer items available on the free market.
I agree completely with your argument. However, I can only hope that the ACA will impact other health care related services by inciting the change necessary to improve the efficiency and quality of actual health care, not just the cost of it.
DeleteWith government regulation, one can hope.
Delete...Fair enough.
DeleteI agree with everything you're saying. I like how you pointed out that sick people aren't the only ones who need health insurance. I think that a lot of people overlook the fact that healthcare is beneficial to everyone, even those who are currently healthy.
DeleteThank you, and yes. No one can tell if they will need health insurance in the future. It's never a bad idea to have.
DeleteI believe that the goverment should intervene only when businesses are corrupt with no regulation. It's a free market, and setting a mandate wouldn't coincide with the "free" part of the term. I believe that it's unconstitutional, solely because, in my opinion, people should be able to choose whether or not they should get health insurance. I know that, sometimes, small business owners choose not to get health insurance and get their health care through other ways.
ReplyDeleteIn the short run, I think the health care industry will improve. However, after awhile, it will be hurt. There will be less competition. The quality of the care will decrease because the bar is set by the government, not the patient. I think the biggest problem of the ACA is that it's hard to generalize one plan for every citizen, because every citizen requires specific treatment depending on the individual. The accessibility will improve, and that's one thing I like about this law - the requirements for health care aren't as strict. It'll be easier for people to get health care.
I think there is a small possibility for the government to try to intervene in other industries. However, I doubt that, because social programs generally create unwanted debt. Social programs cost money. That raises taxes and lowers GDP. There's already a 15 trillion dollar debt. This is also why I'm not an advocate of this program.
I completely agree with your arguments. As stated in an article by Robert Jacob Samuelson, the ACA will force employers to spend more on health care for their employees thus harming their business and the rate of employment. I like how you pointed out that the bar will be set by the government, not the individual. If the government controlled all the health care, how good will it really be?
DeleteI agree that government will not likely intervene in other markets. I like how you pointed out that social programs cause debt-something America can take no more of. The $2.5 trillion cost, as El-Sayed noted, would only add to the burden we, as future taxpayers, will have to overcome.
DeleteThere won't be only one plan for everyone, though. The mandate only requires that citizens have health insurance, it doesn't say anything about the precise plan they purchase.
DeleteHere is an intereting article from a Washington Post Columnist: Robert Jacob Samuelson
ReplyDeletehttp://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/robert_j_samuelson/robert-j-samuelson-obamacare-shows-president-s-poor-judgment/article_14e94758-037d-5acb-b3ff-10afad31548b.html
This article was published yesterday and may provide some points that have not been brought up in the discussion yet.
I believe that the federal government should intervene in the free market when the free market has become corrupt, causing harm to individuals, to businesses, or to our economy as a whole. It is completely constitutional for our government to step in, as it is their duty to ensure the well being of our country. The last article by Robert Jacob Samuelson brought into light some very interesting points. The ACA will cause a decline in the rate at which people are hired because the cost the employer will be required to pay for the employees health care will be high. Companies will suffer losses in revenue due to this required health care and individuals will suffer due to the decline in job availability. While the ACA does have some good traits, providing more widely available health care to the public, our government will have to spend more then our country has to establish this program. With our nation already so buried in debt, I do not see this wise. I do not believe this institution will improve our health care system, at least in the short term. The public will loose more then they will gain. The intervention by the government however could be good for our nation. It will show the leadership and concern for our country that our government has. It will also help set the stage for other legislation in the future.
ReplyDeleteI like how you pointed out that companies will suffer from the ACA. Not only will the private health insurance be decimated, but smaller companies will struggle to provide benefits.
Deletei completely agree on how that it is constitutional for the government to intervene but in certain circumstances.
DeleteThe laissez faire principles under which America has predominantly aligned itself should be held with the utmost care. Especially with the economy as fragile as it is, the government should avoid all measures to artificially affect the financial standing of its citizens. These measures only further cripple the economy by setting the precedent that the government is the backbone and babysitter of the public's finances. Only when monopolies form, hyperinflation occurs, or working conditions prove torturous should the government step in and minimally regulate in order to guarantee that a healthy economy, with a hearty middle class, continues. For example, sweatshop conditions are unacceptable and would need to be abolished if the existed in nation. In my opinion, the Affordable Care Act is not constitutional because it imposes on the consumer's right of liberty. Apart from taxes, citizens should have free reign over their finances. Any mandate the founding fathers implemented as referred to Einer Elhauge's article are archaic and irrelevant. They too, are unconstitutional-that is likely why they don't exist today.
ReplyDeleteThose currently insured enjoy remarkable healthcare benefits. Premiums are relatively low and treatment is generally hasty when compared to other countries with socialized medicine. However, if the ACA passes, these premiums could skyrocket. Discounts lost could amount to $600. I believe results would be similar to that of the No Child Left Behind Act where a middle standard was set that all students were required to meet. While it did bring up the underperforming children, it also held back the advanced students. This had a negative result as the overall education of America's children. Instead, as it is now being realized, all children are being brought to the "top". In my opinion, the same holds true for healthcare. The overall good of the people will stagnate, and maybe even decline. This is why I believe Dr. O'Shea's proposal that funds should be allotted to the disadvantaged so that they can buy into the current system will work. It will provide healthcare to those who need it without putting the quality of care at risk.
If the ACA does pass, I do not believe it will set a dangerous precedent for other free market consumer items. Since the problem of healthcare is so unique in that it affects the well-being of the public, this legislation shouldn't translate to other items.
I really like the comparison to No Child Left Behind! I never thought of it that way, but I really do agree. I think the beauty of America is that you are allowed to make your own path and move up through the classes. However, the ACA would cripple that and make everyone average. Very well put :)It is important to note that we are still supposed to get a choice in quality of the insurance, but prices might cause a bit of upheaval economically for many people.
DeleteYou say that under the ACA, the standard of healthcare may drop for some people who have been enjoying a very high standard. This may happen, but the only way for the insurance of people with pre-existing conditions to work is for more healthy people to purchase health insurance, which they would probably not do unless it was mandated. I have to believe that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to have health insurance and be taken care of in our idealistic America. Otherwise, I think the article about the founding fathers is just a rebuttel to an argument that the founding fathers would not agree with the ACA were they alive today, not an argument advocating the Act.
DeleteAlthough you qualified this statement somewhat by mentioning monopolies and hyperinflation, your original statement about laissez faire seems counterproductive. From what I learned last year, laissez faire was a huge contributing factor to the Great Depression. It didn't begin to end until the government stepped in and a war broke out. Since the war has only worsened things, government is all we have this time.
DeleteAlso, health care premiums are "relatively" extremely high. Plus America's actual health care system is very inefficient and generally costly.
The government should regulate free markets when consumers, other than those that purchased the product, are financially impacted. For example, car insurance is an appropriate product to require. When one driver cause an accident with a second driver, there needs to be some guarntee that the second driver will recieve payment for the damages created. Without insurance, there would be nothing holding the first driver accountable and there's also the chance that the second driver will never see their money because the first driver doesn't have it. Health insurance is not the same. If one person gets sick, they are impacting those around them emotionally but are not giving anybody else an extra bill to pay. Requiring a product to be bought is unconstitutional because it takes away freedom of choice. However, it is constitutional for the government to regulate industries. For example, they regulate monoplies to create an even playing field in industries. With health insurance, they could mandate a cap on premium prices from health insurance companies to make it more afforable for consumers. This would drop prices and increase the number of people who could afford the insurance.
ReplyDeleteACA won't improve the health care industry. By nationalizing health care, the industry would become publicized. The money available would be spread thinly due to the fact that there are more consumers to take care of. Less money would go into procedures and doctors' salaries. This would take away some motivation for people to become doctors. Also, there would be less scientific research being done, again taking away motivation for people to become doctors and change the face of medicine. The same thing happened with education when it became a public industry. Teachers were payed less and money was distributed by the districts into the wrong areas such as Superintendent's larger salary and technology for every classrooms when it should be more of the teachers' salaries and new text books. Access will increase but it won't be as easy as we think. There will be less available appointments and surgery slots because there will be more people going to hospitals and into practices than there are now.
There are two other major pitfalls of ACA. Consumers will lose money on health insurance. Even if a consumer already has the product, the price will increase because of supply and demand. They will also lose money to higher taxes to make up for the increase of money being needed for programs such as Medicaid. The government wouldn't be able to spend any extra money in the program due to the large debt. The only place to get the money needed is from taxing the citizens. The other pitfall is that with ACA, more doors are being opened for consumer mandate. When our Founding Fathers mandated health insurance for seamen, they went on to mandate firearms for all able bodied men. Today, our politicians are more corrupt than the Founding Fathers so what would stop them from mandating bigger products that they feel would help our society? Next they could mandate smart cars to help the environment. A mandate such as this would be unfair because not everyone agrees that the environment is a major problem. It would also make us a more socialistic nation, just like ACA would do.
You make the point that a sick person will not impact a healthy person's need for health insurance. While this is true, I think that a healthy person should still have health insurance. While health care involves treating people who are sick, this is not its sole purpose. Health care is also about keeping people healthy and looking out for their well being. Many go regularly to the doctor or the dentist, whether or not they are sick. Prevention is a big part of health care, and healthy people that visit the doctor regularly are able (to an extent) to avoid becoming sick and often are able to discover a problem early on that could potentially save their lives.
DeleteI agree that the health care field will be less lucrative for potential job-seekers, but I still think it will remain a high paying field. Doctors in America make more money than other places, and probably more than they really need. I think that the ACA will be an adjustment, and it will lower salaries. Given the amount doctors are presently paid however, I don't think that this cut will be very significant.
I don't beleive that the price of health care will increase, because the individual mandate prevents that. If only the sick were buying health insurance then I would say that the price would increase significantly. By requiring people to buy health insurance, fluctuating prices are avoided. Those who wish to have a better health insurance plan will pay more, and those who want the bare minimum will pay less. Although more money will be used treating more patients, more money will be made because of the rise in people paying for health insurance.
I agree with you that healthy people should have health care as well. Many of them do, just like many sick people have health care as well. As far as the doctors' salaries are concerned, I don't think they should have to take a pay cut. They work 12-16 hour shifts multiple times a week and have truly earned what they are getting payed. Their pay checks are as high as they are because health care is a private industry. With ACA, this is no longer the case and their salaries could take a drastic loss the way many other publicized industries have. If that happens, there won't be a strong incentive for people to enter this career because they will be working long days and being payed less than they should be.
DeleteI definitely see where you're coming from, and I don't necessarily think that doctors deserve a pay cut. It's a trade off; making more money vs. treating more people. If money is someones only incentive for becoming a doctor, than I agree that less people will be interested in a career in the health care field. However I don't think that this career should be all about money, and there are doctors out there who genuinely care about their patients. Every doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath, which states "I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick." Doctors should be worried about the economic health of their patients as well as their physical health. After all, being a doctor is really about helping people. The bottom line is that adjustments are going to have to be made, and I think that the pros of the ACA outweigh the cons. I don't think that the ACA is a perfect solution, but I do think it is a step in the right direction.
DeleteIn my opinion this act will not solve healthcare because it was so poorly timed. The federal government is 15 trillion dollars in debt and should not be seeking out more ways to spend money. On the contrary, they should be saving money and if they think that this healthcare bill is necessary administer it at some point in the future when the governments billfold doesn't need health insurance. Also the government rarely, some might say never, improves the way things function. Our Post Offices and DMVs are so slow and inefficient and it is hard to believe medical care will be any different. Putting all that aside it is still unconstitutional to force people to buy a product so that part of the ACA will probably be revoked. The part about Medicade is not unconstitutional because they already have programs that the federal government pays states to enforce. If the Supreme Court decides that any part is unconstitutional the implication is that the entire bill will have to be scrapped. Without a mandatory buy in the system will not have enough people to function and with no Medicade the positive effect is much less so either way the decision affects the bill substantially. If they don't find a problem with the mandatory purchase of insurance it will allow them in the future to stop the purchase of anything i.e. cigarettes which would be devastating on our free trade economy.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the ACA will not be sucessful due to the poor timing and the current economic situation that the country is in. A plan like this may work out in the future, but not until the country has recovered from the hard economic times and has the funds needed to fund a health care plan like this one. I also like your cigarette example of how other products can be influenced by this mandate. In the future, it is very possible that the government would try to put a ban on the purchase of cigarretes, due to their many health risks.
DeleteThe goal of health insurance agencies has shifted from helping the sick to making as much money as possible. This is evident in the turning down of applicants with preexisting conditions. Since these companies believe that the patient will be too costly, they refuse coverage and essentially put a price on human life. This is a very heartless action that I believe needs to be changed. Though I am not a strong believer in Government intervention, I feel that there are moments where exceptions need to be made.
ReplyDeleteIt is only necessary for the Government to intervene in a free market economy when companies are acting heinously towards the people, such as in the situation listed above. But to what extent should The Government intervene? Are they using this as an excuse to take it a step further? I believe that they are on the right track by forcing health insurers to accept all applicants regardless of their background, but forcing the entire country to purchase healthcare is a bit much, and in my opinion, unconstitutional.
This legislation not only imposes on the personal liberties that make America unique, but is also demeaning to those who do not wish to purchase Healthcare insurance. As Dr. John O’Shea points out in “Obama's Health-Care Plan: Pros and Cons Debate”, American citizens, “regardless of income level”, are “capable” of making rational decisions about their personal health care plan. The Government is essentially telling the people what is best for them, as opposed to letting them decide that for themselves. Sure, this legislation would help “improve” the healthcare industry by reaching more citizens, but if this is not in their best financial interest, it is nothing more than a hindrance to what they really need, financial security.
Finally, as a solution to this problem, the Government should give incentive to those who choose to purchase health insurance, as opposed to punishing those who don’t.
I agree with you that the health care plan takes away choices from the citizens that are theirs to make, such as choosing whether or not to purchase health insurance. Your idea of giving an incentive for those who purchase health insurance is a good one, and it would refrain from forcing citizens in this free market from purchasing a specific product which the government shouldn't do in the first place.
DeleteThe ACA will most likely have a negative effect on our economy. The doctor whom was against the act made a valid point of that it will limit the peoples choice of insurance. Since it will be required by law people will no longer be able to choose the insurance that is best for their personal situation and now only to be able to choose based on their financial status and income. This should also not pass on the basis that it is unconstitutional to force the citizens of America to purchase anything. With the ACA it will definitely limit peoples choices and create more issues with the following years. Secondly, the government should only attempt to reform or intervene into our free economy is when the people of the U.S. truly need help and the country is in turmoil. However creating acts that have a possibility of failing then the government should never even support such an idea. the government can intervene but only when it is truly important.
ReplyDeletethe government should never support the idea because the act can cripple people from buying insurance. After purchasing people can also become financially cripple from being forced to buy an insurance that has nothing to do with their personal situation. The reason why the ACA is unconstitutional is because the government is now limiting the choices of our free economy and is against the idea of capitalism. as a conclusion a solution could be that instead of limiting peoples choices instead creating more choices for people by giving stimulus or instead reforming the inefficient medical system so that medical bills will be less and will just as well lower insurance rates.
DeleteI agree with you when you say that the ACA will have a negative effect on our economy. Capitalism is strongest when people have the freedom to choose, therefore creating competing businesses within industries. By forcing people to buy medical insurance, there will be less competition among businesses and higher prices because businesses know that they won't lose customers since it's mandatory. Costumers will lose money buying insurance and have to go without something else, hurting a second industry. For example, one family may have to forego buying new clothes because they needed to buy health insurance. Clothing industries would be negatively impacted in that scenario. Also, you bring up a really good point that the government could reform the health care industry by setting price regulations for insurance rates.
DeleteI don't really see how the Act will cripple people by making them buy insurance as it also expands Medicaid, giving financial help to the people who need it. Furthermore, the Act does not mean that "people will no longer be able to choose the insurance that is best for their personal situation" as it simply mandates that people get health insurance, not the specific plan that they get.
DeleteIn a free market, economy, the government should intervene very minimally if at all. There are some circumstances that require government intervention, such as when a business is in jeopardy or corrupt, however this type of intervention should be supported by the public in order to not waste millions of tax payer money where it is not necessary. Government intervention in the free market must be cautioned as to not take away the purpose of a “free” market where there is not suppose to be any government regulation in the first place. Government regulation of the free market can also lead to an erosion of the market and a decline in government funds available. The constitution allows for very minimal government regulation in the market, of which powers arise from the constitutional powers to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, tax and spend, to borrow, and to promote general welfare. Therefore, if the government intervenes in specific situations, then it is constitutional.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this legislation will not improve the United States’ health care system, due to the many flaws in its design. The system seems to want to dominate prices and behavior rather than simply providing the people who cannot afford health insurance funds and different insurance options that meet their needs. Individual patients are also capable of making their own health decisions, without government assistance and regulation. Within the system, there will not be a sufficient number of doctors available, meaning poorer health care and longer waiting times. The ACA has numerous hidden expenses that will prevent companies from hiring new employees, and will increase the country’s debt. Health insurance premiums for those already insured could also grow substantially, as the system must make up for the rise in the amount of sick people that need treatment. Those who cannot afford health insurance, or the poor, are said to be the group of people with the most illnesses, which when insured will greatly affect the cost of insurance. Although many people would have newly attained access to health care, the costs at which it will happen far outweigh the reward, especially when the country is already recovering from a major economic hardship. The government must revise the plan to create new health care options and provide funds for the uninsured to become insured in the same system that the rest of the country is already in.
This health care policy could possibly carry a precedent for other items on the free market, however it is unlikely that it will have a major influence. The founding fathers mandating that seamen buy insurance for themselves in the late 1700’s hasn’t had serious influence on other free market goods today, and I believe that the ACA will the same minimal effect.
You speak about individual patients being able to make decisions for themselves. One of the major provisions of the Act is the inability of an insurance company to turn away someone due to a pre-existing condition. In order for this to work, more healthy people have to buy insurance. You speak of healthcare becoming much more expensive for people. With all of the healthy (and wealthy) people having to buy insurance, it does not seem that premiums would have to be raised so much. The plan really depends on the individual mandate. As a whole, the Act should be able to improve the health insurance system, assuming that making sure that the people who need healthcare get it is a priority.
DeleteIn response to your statement at the beginning of paragraph two stating that the ACA doesn't provide funds and options to those who can't afford health care, I believe you are mistaken. It specifically increases the scope of medicaid and encourages companies to provide insurance for their workers. I also don't believe it lessons the number of doctors or their availability. Finally, I wish to point out that the poor are only "the group of people with the most illnesses" because they don't recieve the basic health care- yearly physicals and biyearly dental visits for example- that others do. Their small illnesses remain untreated because they can't afford even a quick trip to the doctor's until they become very dangerous illnesses.
DeleteIn a free market economy, the government shouldn't be able to intervene: if a business gains massive popularity and affluence, that's on them. If a business fails because of the other, well that's the Capitalism that 'Mericans love so much. The problem with small businesses is that they complain about places like Wal-Mart or McDonalds taking advantage of capitalism and don't realize that they just want to be as successful as them. I know it's not fair, but that's the idea behind capitalism, so either live with it or change it.
ReplyDeleteThat comment was by me, Draxton. I don't know what happened
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks for letting me know that the response was yours Draxton. However, initial responses need to be posted by Wednesday of the week you choose to particpate. In addition your post is not entirely on topic for this week's discussion. Please give a more complete response in order to be considered for credit this week. Thanks.
DeleteHello everyone.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to take a moment to tell you how impressed I am with your responses this week. The responses given this week were intelligent, strong, and targeted. I also appreciated the respectful way in which you carried out the discussion with your classmates. While you don't all agree, how could we on an issue such as this, it was clear that all opinions were respeceted and even considered. I am honored to be teaching such a great group of students. Thank you!