Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Couple of points, then a question:
1. Canada's ban on private health insurance and fee for service medicine has since been ruled unconsitutional for obvious reasons.
2. For the same or similar reasons (I'm not a Canadian constitutional law scholar, but I'll make a wild assumption there), the US could never outlaw private fee for service care or private health insurance.*
3. Given the reality of #2, how is universal health care supposed to succeed in the face of so many market forces subverting its intent? Is the assumption good docs would run to big hospitals awash in more federal money? Is the govt supposed to be a much more willing payer than the insurance companies who pay nickles on the dollar to the hospitals? I'm honestly confused about how this universal health care system would do much more than bring substandard care to a shitload of people and push those with means into a fee for service or private insurance environment at a nice discount (insurers could probably service an economically well off risk pool at advantageous rates since the poor tend to have the most health crises and chronic illnesses).
*I think under the McCarran or McCann Ferguson Act or something like that states are the ultimate regulators of insurance so the Feds trying to grab the reins there would be a real mess.
|
The MacCarran Ferrguson Act (I could be wrong about the spelling, but you know what I mean) is federal legislation. If the Congress decides to adopt universal health care coverage, and they decide to nationalize the health care system (which are two things that are not necessarily tied together), then presumably they would repeal the insurance act and bring health insurance within the scope of the Commerce Clause.
Of course, this is a vast oversimplification. There are also collateral issues like federalism and the 11th Amendment and state control over other types of insurance. But this, I think, should answer your basic question.
