Comments for bella gerens

Comment on Adventures in SCOTUS by Ashlyn

Ashlyn — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:13:41 +0000

In my state, the mandatory benefits for individual/family health insurance include: “Cancer screening for women including breast cancer screening and cervical cancer screening, reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, osteoporosis screening, direct access to OB/GYNs, OB/GYNs as Primary Care Providers.”

So, no, insurance companies are not allowed to sell (and I am not allowed to purchase) policies that do not cover those things.

Comment on Living standards in London by Luke

Luke — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:22:15 +0000

You are making your example of basing your experience on London- a very unique section of the United Kingdom that is is VERY unrepresentative of the rest of the country.

Comment on Adventures in SCOTUS by bellagerens

bellagerens — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:27:03 +0000

PS The market itself doesn’t have to be interstate to fall under the Commerce Clause; it only has to be shown to affect interstate commerce. That’s what all of this wrangling about the wheat trading law has been about: growing your own wheat for local trade isn’t interstate, but it still affects the interstate market in wheat, which the Court apparently upheld as valid under the Commerce Clause.

Comment on Adventures in SCOTUS by bellagerens

bellagerens — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:25:02 +0000

You should really read the transcripts! They are fascinating. Whatever the Court’s decision, this case has touched on the Commerce Clause, the Spending Power, federalism, and tax—it’s like a microcosm for the country’s fundamental existential questions. I think it will be studied as a key piece of jurisprudence for a very long time.

Comment on Adventures in SCOTUS by bellagerens

bellagerens — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:23:29 +0000

Well, that’s exactly it, isn’t it. A large part of why this law sucks is because the government could have pursued other options, such as allowing insurance companies to trade across state lines. (And although there may be something, I can’t think of a single other legal product in the United States that is not allowed to be traded across state lines.)

I’m not sure about catastrophic insurance. Perhaps one of the other Americans who reads this blog can help answer that question. I think it would be silly if it didn’t exist, because there would almost certainly be people who would buy it, so there’s a market out there for the insurance companies to get into if they felt it would profit them. But insurance is such a weird thing in the US that there could be some existing law prohibiting that kind of catastrophic cover. Anyone out there know the answer?

Comment on Adventures in SCOTUS by FrankC

FrankC — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:01:00 +0000

Perhaps if health insurance companies could operate across state lines the premiums they charge might be reduced, allowing at least some of the “40 million Americans who don’t have access to care,” to buy health insurance.
Is it possible for the young and healthy to buy “catastrophic” health insurance in much the same way that car insurance has a lower limit e.g. fender-bender, pay for it yourself, but total write-off and the insurance pays out?

Comment on Adventures in SCOTUS by cctruckston

cctruckston — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:26:28 +0000

If those who do not buy insurance are not in the market, then the government cannot force them to participate in the market under the commerce clause. If the government can force individuals into a market by asserting the commerce clause, what is to prevent the government from regulating other aspects of their lives? Health insurance companies cannot operate across state lines, so they are not involved in interstate commerce.How, then, can the government use the commerce clause to regulate health insurance companies?

Comment on Then they fight you by sconzey

sconzey — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:45:15 +0000

Yay! Another success for democracy!

Comment on Then they fight you by Surreptitious Evil

Surreptitious Evil — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:01:37 +0000

The “fallacy of the excluded middle” is everywhere, unfortunately. There are some extreme nutters who claim to be libertarians (just as there are for every political viewpoint) – and there are extreme social conservatives (largely in the US) who have a Rothbard / Mises take on economics and therefore get confused (or confuse themselves) with libertarians.

However, when addressing libertarianism, the popular left press will never look at actual liberal viewpoints, economics or writers because it is so much simpler just to whack the whackos.

Comment on Then they fight you by hrothgar

hrothgar — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:30:46 +0000

That’s why I find it’s often far simpler not to use the ‘L-word’ when trying to reason with people. The question isn’t “how do libertarians win?” The question is “how do we convince people to acknowledge reality?” It’s not that we need everyone to read Rothbard–though it couldn’t hurt–so much as we need to present the ideas in a way that saps legitimacy from the statist arguments. History is on our side.

As the public narrative we’re all supposed to believe about the world becomes further and further divorced from the reality people are perceiving first-hand, the argument will win itself.