Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Pragmatically, yes. We have very hard core no-smoking laws in Washington. I enjoy them. I also voted against them. I don't fear the state because of them, but I don't like the principle under which they were enacted.

    Not every alarm is a five alarm fire. I'm a pragmatist.
    Well, I see Gov as a fire that will consume all liberty if not kept in check.
    So every time the gov grabs more power for itself there is cause for concern, which should only be lowered once
    the gov proves that it will not be a problem... That is not the track-record of the gov.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't think its a new power particularly. There are many markets the government forces me to be in one way or another. I am in the police market, the national defense market, the education market, the health care market, the pension market, the construction market, the energy market, the agriculture market and many many more by virtue of my support of the government. The means here is new, but the practical upshot is not.
    Really, which Police department did you buy into? Did they offer a plan?

    Seriously, those are not private market products. Those are not private market product that you must buy.. Healthcare is a private market product that is being required.
    The distinction is important.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    There are limits. No one is saying there are no limits except the alarmists.
    challenge

    I challenge you on this because the justices BEGGED for a limiting principle to be offered by the Pro side.... they could not.
    if you know of one, Not only am I interested, I think you should write Obama an E-mail so He can pass it on to his lawyers.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What if the government ran my D&D game too? That I would care about. But I don't see any danger in it happening. The government runs my trash collection and utilities, they work just fine and I don't feel ripped off.
    Our trash is picked up by a private company the local gov bids out to do.
    I'm not sure how it works, but it isn't the gov that is picking up my trash.

    Speaking of trash, that is a great example of gov incompetence and a reason to not let them do it.
    When Katrina came through the fed spend something like $90 per yard to pick up and dispose of trash. The Local/state spend about half that, and the people did it for free (churches.... not the chicken place).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I would be concerned if the state controlled all medical practice such that any non state sponsored medicine were forbidden. That I am very much against. If however the government by the will of the people wants to try and pay for poor peoples medical care, I'm perfectly fine with it. If that means I have to buy insurance to make it work, I'm OK with that too.
    That isn't what the gov is doing. They are requiring you to purchase your own insurance to pay for your own health-care.
    That in turn will pay for the poor, but they are not taxing you to provide a service to the poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't buy into that kind of slippery slope argument.
    Considering the history of the Gov, and a proper view (IMO) of the gov.. You should.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Abortions can be dire. Though most aren't. And yes, for instance we could all have our teeth rot out, but that I think is something we have decided culturally is not acceptable or wise.

    I have innumerable issues with health care, but the notion of helping the poor have it isn't something I necessarily oppose. There are certainly limits to what I think should be covered and what I think should not. I'm willing to compromise on those for the most part, but I do think there need to be limits. Abortions are a limit I could accept, but not one I necessarily support.
    If the proposed system had some limits I may be more in agreement with you.
    However there are none, and the gov IS requiring people who oppose abortions to personally pay specifically for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Earlier this year I got a new insurance program, all the provisions that were mandated by the health care act were quite reasonable to me. I was much pleased by them in fact both in that they were good for me, but also they made sense from a standpoint of encouraging responsible behavior on the part of the insured.
    Thats nice, I don't think the abortion charge is "reasonable" or 'acceptable", and it is the first that I know of... there could be others.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    not that I am sure you are wrong but I Challenge to support a claim. to show that some insurance will be illegal to sell under the new law.
    Insurance that doesn't cover abortions. .. hence the stink about the abortion coverage requirement.

    Also, any product that doesn't meet the "minimal requirement".. such as if I wanted to purchase only catastrophic medical.. that product would be illegal because it wouldn't meet their "minimum".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The whole point is that you are not directly covering the costs of abortion, you are doing so indirectly
    Sig....you are being specifically CHARGED for it.
    In other words, if you asked for abortion coverage, they would adjust your rates because there is a cost and you pay for it.
    That cost is not simply "built in" it is specific and direct. That is why the Insurance companies use actuary table and what not, it isn't some blind pool of money.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    There is a pool of money, and some people choose to get abortions with it. Some choose not to. Just like any shared pool of money. Your retirement fund goes to all kinds of people who then use it for all kinds of things. Every dollar you put in a bank goes out to support this and that thing that you may or may not like.
    Above I have specified the relevant difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If you aren't making the choice or targeting the money, then its not your responsibility to determine where it goes and you are not supporting anything or not supporting anything through it.
    Again, you are paying for a service and paying to enter a pool of a specific risk. In so doing, you support that "risk". The "risk" here being the insurance term for anything they spend money on.
    Every risk is specific, and specifically charged for.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Thanks, but I take no responsibility for that. Once money leaves my hands, unless I'm directing it, I'm not responsible for it. Likewise when I put money in medical insurance, what its used for is none of my business so long as I get the coverage I paid for.
    I said the same thing when I gave Binadin my money... I was paying for his tea-cups... I wasn't "supporting" his terrorist activities.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The founding fathers did that. We just built on it.
    No, the founders gave us limited Gov.. this is giving them God powers.
    The fact that there is no limiting principle in this legislation at all is a testimony to it.

    I don't see by what stretch of the imagination one could say that the founding fathers gave the fed God powers over the citizens. It appears to turn everything they ever wrote about limited gov on it's head.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Which is why your argument that you are supporting abortions is absurd.
    I don't see why you would consider it a great jump in logic or some unreasonable conclusion to think that the item you are being charged for.. is the item your money is going to.
    Do you think your water bill isn't for your water, but for the water of the general public?
    Or that because you write a check to the water company, your not really supporting the water systems.. you are supporting the Gov in general?

    I think that view takes a willful blindness to what is going on.
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,461
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I see Gov as a fire that will consume all liberty if not kept in check.
    So every time the gov grabs more power for itself there is cause for concern, which should only be lowered once
    the gov proves that it will not be a problem... That is not the track-record of the gov.
    I happen to like the track record of the government compared to most governments.

    Really, which Police department did you buy into? Did they offer a plan?
    The shoreline police department. They did not offer me a plan. They are however payed for by my tax money and run by the people I elect to office.

    Seriously, those are not private market products. Those are not private market product that you must buy.. Healthcare is a private market product that is being required.
    The distinction is important.
    I don't think it is very important. I never have. You will find on many topics I feel this way. State economic activity and private economic activity are almost identical. The exceptions are areas of law and national defense. There they operate very differently. One can take away your liberty and the other can take away your life. Everything else, the government buying a piece of timber, is no different than me buying a piece of timber. Its still timber and its still being used for something and someone is paying and someone is buying.

    challenge

    I challenge you on this because the justices BEGGED for a limiting principle to be offered by the Pro side.... they could not.
    if you know of one, Not only am I interested, I think you should write Obama an E-mail so He can pass it on to his lawyers.
    They challenged the lawyers principles, they did not beg him to provide some. Here is an example of his responses
    Quote Originally Posted by VERRILLI from day 2 arguments
    : So two things about that, Justice Kennedy. First, we think this is regulation of people's participation in the health care market, and all -- all this minimum coverage provision does is say that, instead of requiring insurance at the point of sale, that Congress has the authority under the commerce power and the necessary proper power to ensure that people have insurance in advance of the point of sale because of the unique nature of this market, because this is a market in which -- in which you -- although most of the population is in the market most of the time -- 83 percent visit a physician every year; 96 percent over a five-year period -- so virtually everybody in society is in this market, and you've got to pay for the health care you get, the predominant way in which it's -- in which it's paid for is insurance, and -- and the Respondents agree that Congress could require that you have insurance in order to get health care or forbid health care from being provided
    There was some earlier dialog where they asked if this could be applied to X market or Y market and Verrilli repeatedly answered "No" and went on to say that the health care market was unique. Again, I'm not entirely buying the government case, but they are pushing for a limited take that only justifies this specific law an its specific mechanism in this specific market.

    Our trash is picked up by a private company the local gov bids out to do.
    I'm not sure how it works, but it isn't the gov that is picking up my trash.
    It is. If they didn't pay for it that company would not be picking up your trash. They are deciding which private company will get your trash, they are negotiating the price and you are paying for it. You are not given a direct choice in the matter. You do have indirect influence through voting etc...

    Speaking of trash, that is a great example of gov incompetence and a reason to not let them do it.
    When Katrina came through the fed spend something like $90 per yard to pick up and dispose of trash. The Local/state spend about half that, and the people did it for free (churches.... not the chicken place).
    The chicken place?? Yes the feds sometimes have a penchant for spending too much money on a service, I agree with that. But it doesn't change my point that the state engages in all manner of commerce on your behalf. I know you are not fond of it, but it does it, always has to some extent, and likely will continue to do so for the rest of your life.

    That isn't what the gov is doing. They are requiring you to purchase your own insurance to pay for your own health-care.
    That in turn will pay for the poor, but they are not taxing you to provide a service to the poor.
    Not quite. They are mandating you pay for your own health care expenses, and they are collecting taxes to pay for similar expenses for the poor.

    Considering the history of the Gov, and a proper view (IMO) of the gov.. You should.
    My reading of US history is that the people who should fearful are....
    1. People who own land the state wants
    2. People who are not white
    3. Communist sympathizers (though to a lesser degree)
    4. Folks who live in other countries we have a bone to pick with
    5. People who dodge paying their taxes

    Other than that, the US hasn't done all that much to invade peoples lives in a systematic way that I would worry about.

    If the proposed system had some limits I may be more in agreement with you.
    However there are none, and the gov IS requiring people who oppose abortions to personally pay specifically for them.
    There are limits to what is required to qualify as acceptable coverage. You do not have to pay specifically for abortions.

    Insurance that doesn't cover abortions. .. hence the stink about the abortion coverage requirement.
    You have failed to show that insurance not covering abortions is illegal. It does not meet the mandated minimum requirements, but it can still be sold legally. There are many policies I can buy, that do not meet the minimum standard and I will still be able to buy them. I would simply also need other coverage to meet the mandate.

    Also, any product that doesn't meet the "minimal requirement".. such as if I wanted to purchase only catastrophic medical.. that product would be illegal because it wouldn't meet their "minimum".
    No, they are not illegal, they just don't satisfy the mandate. I could buy Auto Coverage that protects my car from grafiti artists even though it would not meet my states auto insurance requirements. It is not illegal, it just isn't sufficient for the laws mandate. Same gig here.

    Sig....you are being specifically CHARGED for it.
    In other words, if you asked for abortion coverage, they would adjust your rates because there is a cost and you pay for it.
    That cost is not simply "built in" it is specific and direct. That is why the Insurance companies use actuary table and what not, it isn't some blind pool of money.
    Nope. I work at an insurance company (though its not for people). You don't generally get to pick exactly what is or is not covered. Its a mix of specific things you cover, and packages of general categories of things. I doubt you could find any policies that are specific to covering abortion such that you pay X amount and abortions are now covered. You at best are likely to find "reproductive services" as a blanket term with some companies excluding abortion more for marketing reasons than anything else.

    Abortions save insurers money because nearly all cover birth costs and those are far higher. Most insurers in a sense are happy you are getting an abortion as it saves them money. I doubt they "feel" that way but for the bottom line that is how it works out.

    Again, you are paying for a service and paying to enter a pool of a specific risk. In so doing, you support that "risk". The "risk" here being the insurance term for anything they spend money on.
    Abortion is not a risk, its a savings, sad but true. It costs far more to birth a child than to have an abortion. It is one of the reasons people have abortions in fact.

    No, the founders gave us limited Gov.. this is giving them God powers.
    God has really fallen a long way then if his powers are mandating insurance coverage. Its just not all that important.

    The fact that there is no limiting principle in this legislation at all is a testimony to it.
    It does, its limiting principle is it only applies to health insurance of a given scope. That is pretty specific. The law mandates nothing else. I assume however you mean the principles under which they are defending it in court. Those they say are about regulating existing commercial activity, aka the consumption of health care, where the state already has a kind of mandate for paying for it, and where some people are taking advantage of that. I'm not sure I buy it but that is how they are trying to sell it.

    I don't see why you would consider it a great jump in logic or some unreasonable conclusion to think that the item you are being charged for.. is the item your money is going to.
    You are not being charged for it. Its far more likely your being charged for your hear medication or for surgery or for giving birth. Abortion as I noted is not something insurance companies worry about as a big cost when its covered because its fairly cheap and staves off much larger costs they are required to cover otherwise.

    Do you think your water bill isn't for your water, but for the water of the general public?
    My water bill is based on my specific consumption of water (plus some generalized flat charges) Your insurance is not based on how much medical expense you use, that is why the call it insurance. Its part of a pool to cover generalized risks among a whole population who pay similar rates regardless of their actual health. That is the whole point of the mandate, everyone must be in the pool to ensure the risk is covered evenly.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    They challenged the lawyers principles, they did not beg him to provide some. Here is an example of his responses
    That isn't just me describing it that way, one of the articles quoted early on said the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    There was some earlier dialog where they asked if this could be applied to X market or Y market and Verrilli repeatedly answered "No" and went on to say that the health care market was unique. Again, I'm not entirely buying the government case, but they are pushing for a limited take that only justifies this specific law an its specific mechanism in this specific market.
    "no" is not a limiting principle.. Nore did the justices find his take to be a "limiting principle" either. His take being that it was a "unique" market.
    They gave several examples of where they identified a market that in turn included everyone, and gave the gov power to regulate everything based on the interstate commerce clause.
    Clearly stretching the commerce clause beyond it's intent and purpose.

    In short, your not the only one not buying the gov case and the justices that were Pro obama did exactly as I said and begged the guy through repeated questions for a limiting principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It is. If they didn't pay for it that company would not be picking up your trash.
    What a wild assumption. I already pay them for their services... why wouldn't I do it if the gov wasn't involved?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The chicken place?
    http://www2.qsrmagazine.com/articles...cs/churchs.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yes the feds sometimes have a penchant for spending too much money on a service, I agree with that. But it doesn't change my point that the state engages in all manner of commerce on your behalf. I know you are not fond of it, but it does it, always has to some extent, and likely will continue to do so for the rest of your life.
    Well, the point of the example was to answer the "should they be doing it".. not the "can they do it".

    Which I do admit is a bit off topic..

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Not quite. They are mandating you pay for your own health care expenses, and they are collecting taxes to pay for similar expenses for the poor.
    False, they are mandating that you purchase an insurance product.. "Health care" =/= "health insurance".

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Other than that, the US hasn't done all that much to invade peoples lives in a systematic way that I would worry about.
    I think you give the American Gov credit it doesn't deserve. Gov is Gov, and they all have a single tendency. The only thing that counters that is People revolting or having power.
    So our gov is kept in check by the peoples votes, but once the people give all power to the gov (as this bill does), the gov will use it in ever more intrusive ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You have failed to show that insurance not covering abortions is illegal. It does not meet the mandated minimum requirements, but it can still be sold legally. There are many policies I can buy, that do not meet the minimum standard and I will still be able to buy them. I would simply also need other coverage to meet the mandate.
    I think you misunderstand, the mandate isn't that YOU must have abortion coverage.. it is that any policy sold must cover abortions.
    It is not a minimum requirement for you to buy, it is a minimum requirement for them to provide, and hence you must buy it.

    I think you are flipping its meaning.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, they are not illegal, they just don't satisfy the mandate. I could buy Auto Coverage that protects my car from grafiti artists even though it would not meet my states auto insurance requirements. It is not illegal, it just isn't sufficient for the laws mandate. Same gig here.
    If it doesn't satisfy the mandate, then it is illegal.
    you aren't making much sense, you seem to be drawing a distinction where there simply isn't any.

    The gov has said through the mandate that the insurance company can not sell a product that does not include "X".
    therefore, it is illegal to sell any product that doesn't contain "X". IE the product you buy will contain "X".

    You seem to think the mandate is that you should have X coverage, but that is not what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Nope. I work at an insurance company (though its not for people). You don't generally get to pick exactly what is or is not covered. Its a mix of specific things you cover, and packages of general categories of things. I doubt you could find any policies that are specific to covering abortion such that you pay X amount and abortions are now covered. You at best are likely to find "reproductive services" as a blanket term with some companies excluding abortion more for marketing reasons than anything else.

    Abortions save insurers money because nearly all cover birth costs and those are far higher. Most insurers in a sense are happy you are getting an abortion as it saves them money. I doubt they "feel" that way but for the bottom line that is how it works out.
    Most of the insurances I have shopped specifically exclude birth. So I don't think your argument holds at all.

    Also, you aren't countering my point. My point is that the insurance company uses actuary tables that express specific risks.
    You buy into those pools etc, but you haven't shown that they are not doing exactly as I said and increasing the cost based on an added and specific actuary table used for abortions.

    What you are talking about is our ability to distinguish or sometimes separate risks out of our coverage. The point is, abortion is a new charge and you haven't countered that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Abortion is not a risk, its a savings, sad but true. It costs far more to birth a child than to have an abortion. It is one of the reasons people have abortions in fact.
    You said your in insurance right? How do you not understand that abortion is a "risk" to the insurance.
    I personal ,being a guy, have a zero risk for an abortion. I will never have one, and the insurance company will never ever ever pay for me to have one.
    the risk is zero.

    That is why it is wrong for the insurance agency to charge me for it in any shape or form, because they are charging me to manage a risk that I do not have, and insurance is about managing MY risk, not the risk of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    God has really fallen a long way then if his powers are mandating insurance coverage. Its just not all that important.
    That's sad..

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It does, its limiting principle is it only applies to health insurance of a given scope. That is pretty specific. The law mandates nothing else. I assume however you mean the principles under which they are defending it in court. Those they say are about regulating existing commercial activity, aka the consumption of health care, where the state already has a kind of mandate for paying for it, and where some people are taking advantage of that. I'm not sure I buy it but that is how they are trying to sell it.
    Dude..... Duuuuuuude.. the law isn't the principle, it is the reasoning behind the law that is the principle. The constitutionality of the law is based on a principle that he gov is forwarding IS const.

    Right now that principle is that the gov can force you to purchase a private product that it deems is a market... which is everything, which means there is no limit, which means there is no limiting principle. .. which believe it or not, isn't what the founders intended, and all the judges know it, that is why they hit that topic so hard.

    The justices came up with a few examples of a "unique" market, like death insurance and a few others. Proving that 1) Health insurance is not unique, 2) that every market is "unique", and would thus fall under the principle behind this law.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You are not being charged for it. Its far more likely your being charged for your hear medication or for surgery or for giving birth. Abortion as I noted is not something insurance companies worry about as a big cost when its covered because its fairly cheap and staves off much larger costs they are required to cover otherwise.
    Look they past a law, the insurance companies added a $1 charge to cover abortions.
    If you can show me that I'm wrong in this I will concede the point, but as I understand it, it simply isn't occurring as you suppose it is.
    To serve man.

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinBrowning View Post
    I don't see why Obama's lawyer is trying to argue that health care is "unique." That's really irrelevant. Either the Constitution allows the government to require citizens to purchase goods and services, or it does not. I don't see how it can possibly be interpreted to allow it.
    Wishful thinking on Obama's part.
    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    MT, Sorry I didn’t respond sooner…I’ve been really busy at work for the last week or so.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    General point being (above being true or not) is, do we really want a health-care system like Canada?
    I believe the answer to this depends on whether or not we think it’s important for every American citizen to receive regular routine health care, rather than just the citizens who are able to pay, or who have health insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    If taxes for the us are about 28.3% of GDP & the Gov spending makes up 25% of GDP. Then doesn't that skew the numbers a bit?
    I mean if you would take 25% out of the GDP because that is the gov, then what is left is GDP without Gov, of which the money to pay the gov comes out of.
    Anyway, wouldn't that make it higher? (I don't know, gov plays with # so much I have not clue and I'm honestly asking).
    Numbers aren’t really my strong point, so I don’t know either…If anybody else here can provide more insight on this, please feel free to answer…

    Other than that, assuming the above point is irrelevant, then Canada pays about 5% more of GDP in taxes to get their health-care system.
    I don't see theirs as an improvement as far as product, so I assume we would have to spend more.
    Well…..under the current health care system we have here in this country, the U.S. is already spending much more money for health care than Canada is:

    “In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714.
    The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.”


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari..._United_States

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    So for me, I still have a question as to how much taxes that would be, and what effect they would have. If you know, and your happy with that amount,or have a preconceived maximum amount you are comfortable with
    Since the U.S. already spends more than Canada on health care under our current system, it would honestly be difficult for me to make a prediction as to how much our taxes would go up if the U.S. went to a universal health care system similar to Canada’s....

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Not other countries, in the U.S.
    Trans fat is banned from restaurants
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436
    It was the board of health that did it. Which I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the exact same thing they would have the power to do to an even greater extent.
    According to the article, the prohibition is in New York City only, and it was enacted by the New York City Board of Health, so it’s only a local ordinance, not a U.S. federal law.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    I am sure there is more info out there on rationing.
    I hate to say it, but rationing of health care is already occurring here in the U.S., under our current system.
    Routine health care in this country is now rationed according to a person’s ability to pay (with the exception being emergency room visits).

    People have died because they were uninsured and worried about their ability to pay:
    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/h...e?_s=PM:HEALTH

    And even if you do have health insurance, the private insurance companies are rationing health care for their customers, because they decide what procedures and medications they will and will not pay for, and they also decide whether or not they will cover people with certain pre-existing conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    See, I wonder about that.
    Because as it is anyone can walk into the hospital and get care... what more can be done?
    Yes, people can get medical care for an "emergency medical condition" at a hospital ER (emergency room), regardless of ability to pay, under the EMTALA ( Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act)
    But, EMTALA is an “unfunded mandate”, which means that the federal government does not pay for people who cannot pay their bill.
    Hospital emergency departments are going broke and closing because of people who cannot pay their medical bills.
    http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25936

    Also, health insurance premiums are increasing because of people who are unable to pay their medical bills:
    ”As the number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise, so too do the costs borne by those who have coverage, who face what might be called a “hidden health tax.” Private health insurance premiums are higher, at least in part, because uninsured people who receive health care often cannot afford to pay the full amount themselves. The costs of this uncompensated care are shifted to those who have insurance, ultimately resulting in higher insurance premiums for businesses and families.”
    http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...ealth-tax.html

    ”It's long been known that medical costs are shifted when uninsured patients can't pay for their care. Hospitals, clinics and physicians charge insured people more for services to make up for the financial losses. This translates into higher premiums for employer-sponsored insurance and higher health insurance quotes when consumers shop for individual insurance.”
    http://www.insure.com/articles/healt...c=fxb-37702010

    Seniors are also affected by those who are uninsured:
    ”The researchers also analyzed the impact on seniors. They found that seniors with Medicare coverage who lived in areas where a large share of the population was uninsured were more likely to report difficulty in getting care and the prescription drugs they needed. They also were more likely to report lower satisfaction with their care than seniors in other cities.
    http://www.insure.com/articles/healt...c=fxb-37702010


    So, people who can’t pay their medical bills do affect those of us who can.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Ultimately I look at the national debt and say "No matter how good of an Idea it is... we simply can't afford it".
    In my opinion, we can't afford not to, because it costs more to provide uncompensated care than it would to provide insurance for those who don't currently have any:

    "The Institute of Medicine estimates that $65 billion to $130 billion is lost every year in wages and benefits because of the uninsured, but if insurance was provided to the estimated 46 million Americans who do not have it, it would cost $39 billion-$69 billion a year."

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/DrJohnson/...2#.T4Q7k5lbdEI
    Last edited by Scarlett44; April 10th, 2012 at 07:02 AM.
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  6. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    I believe the answer to this depends on whether or not we think it’s important for every American citizen to receive regular routine health care, rather than just the citizens who are able to pay, or who have health insurance.
    Well, I will say that I do want that, but not at any cost. I won't give in to oppressive taxation or my privacy, or give the gov so much power that they can control what I eat.
    Now, I am not saying that those things will necessarily happen, I am just drawing a line.

    So avoiding those things, the next question to ask is "can we afford it".
    Citi Group considered producing it's own "long term care" products a few years back. They decided not to.. and the reason why was very interesting.
    They believed that the cost for long term care would simply be too expensive and that they could never hope to cover their costs. So they sold the product produced by GE.


    But that was telling to me, when the largest company in the world (at the time) wouldn't touch the costs of Long term care because they saw it as impossibly expensive in the future, is that
    healthcare for all like we would want is simply not going to happen as it will be price prohibitive.


    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Numbers aren’t really my strong point, so I don’t know either…If anybody else here can provide more insight on this, please feel free to answer…
    Ditto there

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Well…..under the current health care system we have here in this country, the U.S. is already spending much more money for health care than Canada is:

    “In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714.
    The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari..._United_States
    Well, think about that for a moment, because that is interesting.
    I see several options as to why that may be.
    1) we are providing better care and therefore more expensive care
    2) We are subsidizing their care indirectly by paying for the development of tec that they eventually use
    3) they are more efficient than we are in their spending.

    I don't think it is #3

    That being said, you did counter my point, so I will retract it, but you bring up a better point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Since the U.S. already spends more than Canada on health care under our current system, it would honestly be difficult for me to make a prediction as to how much our taxes would go up if the U.S. went to a universal health care system similar to Canada’s....
    Well, the bottom line is that the Obama plan was adding trillions to our deficit. In that we were already spending more than we bring in, and it added TRILLION/s more.
    and you know that Washington is always incompetently low on projections. 10 years from now, what is 1 trillion will be 10trillion looking back.
    (o.k. maybe not that bad, but 1 and 2 make a huge, huge difference when you are in the trillions column)

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    According to the article, the prohibition is in New York City only, and it was enacted by the New York City Board of Health, so it’s only a local ordinance, not a U.S. federal law.
    Yes, but my point is that the gov is doing it on some level right now. They have the authority at the city level, they don't have the authority (until this law) on a national level.
    So the idea that they "WOn't DO IT" is an unjustified assumption IMO. If they are doing it now, then they will do it in the future, especially when we already see what the argument is.
    "it is unhealthy for you, and in order to fight rising health costs we are making "X" food illegal".

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    I hate to say it, but rationing of health care is already occurring here in the U.S., under our current system.
    Routine health care in this country is now rationed according to a person’s ability to pay (with the exception being emergency room visits).
    That is not rationing, that is the free market working. Rationing is when the gov tells you, you can not buy X or that your are not eligible for X even if you could pay for it.
    The true rationing in the U.S. probably occurs with transplants.


    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    People have died because they were uninsured and worried about their ability to pay:
    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/h...e?_s=PM:HEALTH
    False, they were not denied care because they did not have insurance.
    They died because they put their cable TV above their health. Show me that they didn't have cable or a phone or were homeless
    and then you have a case. You can't simply pick people who died while not having insurance and blame it on insurance.

    you could do the same with not having a sports car and people who couldn't get to the hospital fast enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    And even if you do have health insurance, the private insurance companies are rationing health care for their customers, because they decide what procedures and medications they will and will not pay for, and they also decide whether or not they will cover people with certain pre-existing conditions.
    But you can pay for them if you like, which means they are available to you as an option, which means they are not rationed.

    Rationed means you can not have it. You are not allowed to have it... not simply that you can't afford it, or there is some outside circumstance that makes it hard
    that is simply reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Yes, people can get medical care for an "emergency medical condition" at a hospital ER (emergency room), regardless of ability to pay, under the EMTALA ( Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act)
    But, EMTALA is an “unfunded mandate”, which means that the federal government does not pay for people who cannot pay their bill.
    Hospital emergency departments are going broke and closing because of people who cannot pay their medical bills.
    http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25936
    yes, that is a huge problem... however it has the current effect of everyone having access to medical care.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Also, health insurance premiums are increasing because of people who are unable to pay their medical bills:
    ”As the number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise, so too do the costs borne by those who have coverage, who face what might be called a “hidden health tax.” Private health insurance premiums are higher, at least in part, because uninsured people who receive health care often cannot afford to pay the full amount themselves. The costs of this uncompensated care are shifted to those who have insurance, ultimately resulting in higher insurance premiums for businesses and families.”
    http://www.familiesusa.org/resources...ealth-tax.html
    Yes, but everyone currently has access to medical care.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    So, people who can’t pay their medical bills do affect those of us who can.
    That is true, but it doesn't contradict my point that everyone in the U.S. has access to care.
    For all the talk of other countries having universal healthcare.. the U.S. has a working version.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    In my opinion, we can't afford not to, because it costs more to provide uncompensated care than it would to provide insurance for those who don't currently have any:

    "The Institute of Medicine estimates that $65 billion to $130 billion is lost every year in wages and benefits because of the uninsured, but if insurance was provided to the estimated 46 million Americans who do not have it, it would cost $39 billion-$69 billion a year."

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/DrJohnson/...2#.T4Q7k5lbdEI
    I reject that number based on the fact that Obama care (which is supposed to do exactly that) was going to costs trillions not a measly 69billion.

    "CBO: ObamaCare Price Tag Shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion"
    http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-...163500655.html

    Now granted the above is the cost for a decade.. but it is still far, far above 69billion a year, and if you notices the cost is rising.
    To serve man.

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where every life is precious
    Posts
    2,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    healthcare for all like we would want is simply not going to happen as it will be price prohibitive.
    If all the other industrialized nations in the world (Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc.) can afford to provide health care for all their citizens, why can’t the U.S. afford it??
    The United States, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, is the only 1st world nation that does not provide some form of universal health care.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    Rationing is when the gov tells you, you can not buy X or that your are not eligible for X even if you could pay for it.
    Not exactly correct….Rationing by the government is the controlled distribution of certain goods and/or services because there is a limited supply of said goods and services.

    For example, a lot of government rationing of food items and other supplies went on here in the U.S. during WWII…During that time each household or person received a limited amount of those items that were in short supply due to the war.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    False, they were not denied care because they did not have insurance.
    The article never said they were denied care…

    The article is saying that they did not even seek care in the first place because they had no health insurance, and were afraid that they could not pay the resulting medical bill in cash if they went to get care.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    They died because they put their cable TV above their health. Show me that they didn't have cable or a phone or were homeless
    and then you have a case…….
    **SIGH**…..MT, you know that no information was given in the article about whether or not any of these people had cable T.V. or a telephone.
    I can’t prove that they didn’t have those things, and you can’t prove that they did, so what is the purpose of debating about this particular point if there is no way for us to get the information ??

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    But you can pay for them if you like, which means they are available to you as an option, which means they are not rationed.
    But they aren’t an option for those who truly don’t have the money to pay for them, correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap
    That is true, but it doesn't contradict my point that everyone in the U.S. has access to care.
    Only for medical emergencies…In fact a “significant portion” of emergency room visits are not covered by EMTALA:

    "A significant portion of emergency room visits are considered not emergencies as defined by EMTALA, and are therefore not covered. The medical profession refers to these cases as "non-emergent":

    **A normal pregnancy delivery. In a case reviewed by courts, EMTALA did not cover the hospital stay.
    **Opioid withdrawal
    **fever, elevated white blood cell count and a possible abscess

    The Washington State Medical Association proposed a list of non-emergency conditions which would not be covered by EMTALA in 2011. The list of several hundred items includes:

    Visual Loss
    Cardiac dysrrhythmias (Not Otherwise Specified)
    Hypoglycemic coma
    pneumonia (Pneumococcal)
    If a patient is already in the hospital for another reason, and develops an emergency condition, EMTALA will similarly not cover the costs of care.”


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...s_or_hospitals
    "As long as I have a voice, I will speak for those who have none".

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Quote Originally Posted by scarlett
    If all the other industrialized nations in the world (Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc.) can afford to provide health care for all their citizens, why can’t the U.S. afford it??
    The United States, one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, is the only 1st world nation that does not provide some form of universal health care.
    well for one, they are not providing equally good care as compared to the u.s. They have excessive waits, we do not.

    So it may be the case that we could afford their kind of care, but it is specifically less quality.

    P.S. be ware, all of the "world comparisons" take into consideration how many people are covered.. and not the quality that each person is actually getting.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Not exactly correct….Rationing by the government is the controlled distribution of certain goods and/or services because there is a limited supply of said goods and services.

    For example, a lot of government rationing of food items and other supplies went on here in the U.S. during WWII…During that time each household or person received a limited amount of those items that were in short supply due to the war.
    Certainly, you are correct in the sense you use it. But when applied to health-care, you are not going to get 4 oz of surgery, instead of the full thing.
    so rationing of health-care is specifically denial of service all together.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    The article never said they were denied care…

    The article is saying that they did not even seek care in the first place because they had no health insurance, and were afraid that they could not pay the resulting medical bill in cash if they went to get care.
    right, but they didn't die because it was unavailable, they died because they chose not to do it because they wanted someone else to pay for it.
    That is just stupid. they didn't die because they didn't' have insurance, they died because they choose to ignore an important aspect of a life and death decision.;


    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    **SIGH**…..MT, you know that no information was given in the article about whether or not any of these people had cable T.V. or a telephone.
    I can’t prove that they didn’t have those things, and you can’t prove that they did, so what is the purpose of debating about this particular point if there is no way for us to get the information ??
    Well that is the point.. because they don't make a distinction from people who CAN NOT and who CHOOSE NOT to have insurance.
    it is an assumption I am not willing to make. Does that make sense?
    Does the distinction seem significant to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    But they aren’t an option for those who truly don’t have the money to pay for them, correct?
    Yes, that is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SCARLETT
    Only for medical emergencies…In fact a “significant portion” of emergency room visits are not covered by EMTALA:

    "A significant portion of emergency room visits are considered not emergencies as defined by EMTALA, and are therefore not covered. The medical profession refers to these cases as "non-emergent":

    **A normal pregnancy delivery. In a case reviewed by courts, EMTALA did not cover the hospital stay.
    **Opioid withdrawal
    **fever, elevated white blood cell count and a possible abscess

    The Washington State Medical Association proposed a list of non-emergency conditions which would not be covered by EMTALA in 2011. The list of several hundred items includes:

    Visual Loss
    Cardiac dysrrhythmias (Not Otherwise Specified)
    Hypoglycemic coma
    pneumonia (Pneumococcal)
    If a patient is already in the hospital for another reason, and develops an emergency condition, EMTALA will similarly not cover the costs of care.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...s_or_hospitals
    True, but you don't have to pay all at once, as long as you pay anything at all there is no action taken against you, or your credit.
    Which is the same as an affordable payment plan that EVERYONE can afford.


    So, basically everyone has affordable health-care, especially for the most serious situations (IE emergency conditions)
    So the main problem is not availability of service, but that people are not paying for them.... at all. If everyone that received services payed something for them... would we really be having this problem?
    To serve man.

  9. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    689
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped by : Healthcare debate in the Supreme court

    Can some Obama supporter explain this:

    In God We Trust
    Support Our Troops!

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 06:21 PM
  2. Team Debate: Supreme Court Decision on Boumediene v. Bush
    By Scarlett44 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2008, 12:13 PM
  3. Supreme Court Contempary Bais
    By Turtleflipper in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 16th, 2007, 10:40 AM
  4. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
    By xB3ngALidiVaX in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 25th, 2005, 02:39 PM
  5. Supreme Court Nominee
    By Booger in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 03:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •