Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Mickey_Finn]

No, the market is not free when one of the payers is stingy in his payments and everyone follows his lead. Medicare sets rates that are absolutely ludicrous. Why would someone spend years in training and end up with six-figure debt just to make $100K a year? That doesn’t make sense. People make six figures with bachelor degrees nowadays.

We’ve been over this Paul. You keep going in circles without adding any value to your position. A free market does not mean what you seem to think it means. Fees are determined by desire and ability to pay, as much as by supply and demand.

The prospect for physician employment remains good. Particularly for those who will go where the skills will do the most good. They can expect to earn at least $80.00 per hour.

ATB

 

[Jeanne_S]

We’ve been over this Paul. You keep going in circles without adding any value to your position. A free market does not mean what you seem to think it means. Fees are determined by desire and ability to pay, as much as by supply and demand.

The prospect for physician employment remains good. Particularly for those who will go where the skills will do the most good. They can expect to earn at least $80.00 per hour.

ATB

80.00 per hour! Insulting

 

[PaulinVA]

We’ve been over this Paul. You keep going in circles without adding any value to your position. A free market does not mean what you seem to think it means. Fees are determined by desire and ability to pay, as much as by supply and demand.

Hmmm. Government offers $20 for an office visit. Doctor says “No way”. Government raises reimbursement so there are more docs available… Oh, wait, no, that’s not what’s happening.

I’m repeating myself because you are not offering a cogent counter argument. The government artificially sets rates that are lower than the service is worth. You’re counter argument should address that point.

The prospect for physician employment remains good. Particularly for those who will go where the skills will do the most good. They can expect to earn at least $80.00 per hour.

What? “Will do the most good”? what does that mean?

 

[LisaA]

80.00 per hour! Insulting

Yep considering the guy who fixes our copy machine charges $75 per hour and our IT guy charges $175 per hour. They also don’t have the overhead a physician has. For example our exam room has thousands of dollars worth of equipment. We have medical supplies which must be used for every patient, plus the cost of disposal of sharps, medical waste etc. We have P.A.'s and a nurse who participate in patient care. They are non low paid employees nor should they be.

There have been numerous plans and structures to replace ObamaTax but the Left doesn’t even acknowledge them, howling that the Republicans have no alternative but to throw granny over a cliff. In a rare moment of honesty Governor Dean (a physician) admitted that Democrats would never address tort reform as a means of reducing the cost of practicing medicine because “the party is beholden to the legal lobby.” The only way to overcome this juggernaut is to replace THEM and then focus on the real issues which do not include taxes on tanning salons and providing free birth control.

Unfortunately as I said earlier this was never about solving the two major issues, access and cost. It was about getting additional control over our lives.

Lisa

 

[austenbosten]

I will say just one more thing, and then I will not return to this thread.

People who make government their God are worshiping human idols.

:clapping:

 

[Dawnia]

Other ways are possible. Other solutions are possible. It doesn’t “have” to be same old, same old.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I know Scott. Your planning to take up arms… Who knows, if you survive your little uprising. You may end up being an advisor for some future President.

ATB

I didn’t say I plan on it. I said I am ready to. More likely than not, I will just move to a country that still understands and appreciates liberty.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Unfortunately, the ones nearest me are all in areas I would feel unsafe driving in.

Community health centres are typically in areas where there are more poor. If you want that health care, and it is free or low cost, you will probably have to go to these areas. Community health centres are probably not going to be in areas where there are people with high incomes. These health centres are known for their high quality health care

 

[stevegravy]

John Roberts, did an outstaning job playing chess with the liberals,as they were playing checkers. The travsasty, the way the Democrats passed a law in such a cowardly way;but,and as always its in God’s hand. Our choice will be returned to us via a vote,given in a wise decision by 4 librals and common sense. Satan handed Eve a Beautiful shiny apple they made the wrong choice. Does anyone see this comparsion ?

God Bless
Onenow1

I disagree he invented new meanings and gave congress the right to degrade the citizen to a surf by only requiring a punitive “tax” should individual refuse to obay. Today a tax tomorrow a whip, it is evolutionary.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Let’s say that too many in the Vatican are Italians, who seem always to look at the US in the light of European politics of the 19th Century. So I am not talking about the Bride of Christ but her ushers. ** Not so sure that the Church has condemned the “welfare state,” but gave it limited approval–as a happy medium between radical liberalism (19th Century style, meaning secular capitalism, social Darwinism) and socialism.** It of course condemned the rabid materialism and nationalism of the time. The socialists opposed nationalism, too. But they were an even greater threat because of their economic reductionism, which was the flip side of economic liberalism. Hard for them to see how the US was never caught up in this stuff to the same degree, that was a different kind of place. So they tended to read developments in the US in the same light as developments in Europe.

I suppose it depends what you mean by a welfare state. Not saying that the state can’t do anything, but it can’t do too much. Because, yes, the welfare state has been condemned.

n recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

I disagree with you about “the ushers” as well but that’s for another time.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Marco Rubio: Obamacare’s taxes punish individuals, small businesses

Since the Obamacare debate began in 2009, I have met thousands of real people impacted by this policy. One in particular has always stood out to me: restaurant owner Ben Pumo from Land O’ Lakes.

When Mitt Romney visited Florida on my behalf in the fall of 2010, we stood in Pumo’s kitchen at Benedetto’s Ristorante Italiano and listened to him explain how policies like Obamacare would impact his business and employees he had come to see as family.

Gov. Romney and I heard a widely held concern around the country: Obamacare would impose new costs on his business, it would be a blow to his freedom to hire workers as he pleased without triggering new taxes, and he feared the worst was yet to come as Obamacare had empowered Washington bureaucrats to write new and unpredictable regulations.

With the recent decision on Obamacare, we were reminded of why this news matters far beyond the Supreme Court’s steps. It matters in kitchens like the one in Ben Pumo’s restaurant and for individuals and business owners across the country.

Obamacare is not the president’s signature achievement. It’s the signature example of the leadership failures and broken promises that have defined Obama’s presidency.

When the president assumed office, he faced the worst economy in generations. After throwing an $800 billion stimulus at the problem, he proposed a health-care overhaul with a mandate to force people to buy health insurance. Or else.

He assured the American people that the individual mandate wasn’t a tax. But when Obamacare was challenged in court for violating the Constitution, he changed his tune, arguing that it was permissible under Congress’ taxing power. The court agreed and upheld Obamacare.

The bait and switch proved to be a brilliant legal strategy, but a disastrous economic policy. For millions of Americans, including job creators, Obama’s political win is now an IRS problem for them in the real world.

Obamacare is bad policy that adds around $800 billion of taxes on the American people. It does not discriminate between rich and poor. It hurts everyone.

It is a job-killer that will drive up insurance premiums and jeopardize the ability of millions of Americans to keep the insurance coverage of their choice. For individuals not complying with Obamacare, it means the IRS will come calling if they fail to pay the Obamacare tax.

For job creators — and unemployed workers relying on them to work again — Obamacare is a new regulatory maze to figure out. For instance, once a business reaches 50 full-time employees, the Obamacare tax will kick in to the tune of $2,000 for each full-time employee in excess of 30 full-time employees unless the business meets a mandate to provide health coverage for them. There are no penalties if part-time employees are not offered coverage.

Thus, rather than freely being able to hire employees without fear of an IRS problem, employers will be encouraged to circumvent the Obamacare tax by hiring people on a part-time basis so they don’t count for this tax. Or maybe an entrepreneur has 49 employees and could use several more to help meet increased demand. Obamacare creates a perverse incentive to hold back and just make existing employees work more so the 50-employee threshold tax isn’t triggered.

These concerns are less pressing for larger enterprises, which have effectively made the case that this law is so bad for business that they need relief from it. With a straight face, the administration has actually agreed, as it has handed out 1,231 waivers. Once again we see how, while big businesses don’t like big government, they have the means to live with it in a way that small businesses can’t.

I hoped the Supreme Court would see the fatal constitutional flaws of this policy and strike it down. It did not, but its ruling did note one very important fact: The future of the program is “entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”

The ultimate fate of Obamacare is thus not in the hands of politicians, the courts, or this president. The voters will decide the final outcome of this fight on Nov. 6

President Obama will keep Obamacare. Gov. Romney will repeal it and replace it with market-based reforms that empower individuals to get health insurance without having the IRS chasing them down if they don’t. Never has a choice been more clear. Never have the differences in two candidates been so stark

articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-07-08/opinion/os-ed-guest-column-rubio-070812-20120706_1_obamacare-individual-mandate-new-taxes

 

[Elizabeth502]

Community health centres are typically in areas where there are more poor. …Community health centres are probably not going to be in areas where there are people with high incomes. These health centres are known for their high quality health care

I haven’t done any statistical study, but I can tell you that “typical” or not, lots more than you think are in suburbs, but they are not being patronized, and I have to believe that these gorgeous, efficient Centers in suburbs (middle incomes and higher-incomes) are simply incredibly well-kept secrets. The way I found out about them? On my lunch break on a job several years ago (in a middle-middle-class suburb), I used to patronize a particular restaurant in one of the many small retail areas (“strip malls”) there. There was a big sign on this storefront that said name of city] Urgent Care. I thought,* 'hmmm; I wonder what that’s all about; don’t know, but I’ll file that away in my brain."*
(My imagination, btw, drifted toward the typical emergency room nightmare occasions: patients waiting for hours, stressed-out physicians, society’s most dysfunctional & dependent people, etc.)

A year or two later, while still at the same job, I had what I thought was or could be an emergency; my boss was also alarmed and ordered me to go see a doctor during my work day. Brain file activated: *“Ah yes, that Urgent Care place; that will substitute for an ER.” * So I walked in. Exactly one other patient was there. I was taken into an exam room within maybe 10 minutes. I had Cadillac care: tests, and referrals for additional tests, based on the preliminaries discovered upon exam. What they were doing was making sure that I was indeed not in an emergency situation, or would become that soon.

I paid amazingly reasonable fees (cheap, compared to doctors’ offices) for the ***90 minutes ***that I was given.

In the physicians’ view, that wasn’t enough care. One of them (not the one who saw me) reviewed my chart, picked up the phone the next day and filled me in more (and comprehesively) about his medical opinion, which confirmed the first. He also carefully explained how he interpreted the blood test findings.

Fast forward to very recently (6 weeks ago), I had an injury on a Friday evening. (I happen no longer to be working in the previous location.) But I sure remembered the previous treatment at that Urgent Care. I decided that my pain was concerning enough for a Saturday visit; it felt like a broken bone (it was, though hairline). Drove back to the very same wonderful clinic. Again, only one other patient there, mid-morning on a Saturday. Was seen immediately & given the same thorough, careful, old-fashioned-doctor service. This time I have insurance (was between insurances the previous time); zero out-of-pocket cost. They gave me a sling (no charge), & recommended some other (non-related) preventative & follow-up stuff I should be doing – addressing many different health areas.

Turn the clock back to about 3 months ago. At a different job, different location, I had another unrelated daytime urgent medical need. At that different suburb (middle-to-high income suburb), I looked up whether there were any Urgent Care clinics nearby: yes, 3 minutes from my office and across the street from the swank hospital. Walked in; no appointment needed. Again, I was the only patient. Received instant & professional care. Paid zero. Then, during the week, the concerned doctor called me either 5 or 7 times (I lost count) to make sure I was OK and was doing follow-up.

I haven’t checked out all the 40 or so suburbs in my region, but I’ll bet there are many underused clinics like this, not in seedy areas.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I haven’t done any statistical study, but I can tell you that “typical” or not, lots more than you think are in suburbs, but they are not being patronized, and I have to believe that these gorgeous, efficient Centers in suburbs (middle incomes and higher-incomes) are simply incredibly well-kept secrets. The way I found out about them? On my lunch break on a job several years ago (in a middle-middle-class suburb), I used to patronize a particular restaurant in one of the many small retail areas (“strip malls”) there. There was a big sign on this storefront that said name of city] Urgent Care. I thought,* 'hmmm; I wonder what that’s all about; don’t know, but I’ll file that away in my brain."*
(My imagination, btw, drifted toward the typical emergency room nightmare occasions: patients waiting for hours, stressed-out physicians, society’s most dysfunctional & dependent people, etc.)

A year or two later, while still at the same job, I had what I thought was or could be an emergency; my boss was also alarmed and ordered me to go see a doctor during my work day. Brain file activated: *“Ah yes, that Urgent Care place; that will substitute for an ER.” * So I walked in. Exactly one other patient was there. I was taken into an exam room within maybe 10 minutes. I had Cadillac care: tests, and referrals for additional tests, based on the preliminaries discovered upon exam. What they were doing was making sure that I was indeed not in an emergency situation, or would become that soon.

I paid amazingly reasonable fees (cheap, compared to doctors’ offices) for the ***90 minutes ***that I was given.

In the physicians’ view, that wasn’t enough care. One of them (not the one who saw me) reviewed my chart, picked up the phone the next day and filled me in more (and comprehesively) about his medical opinion, which confirmed the first. He also carefully explained how he interpreted the blood test findings.

Fast forward to very recently (6 weeks ago), I had an injury on a Friday evening. (I happen no longer to be working in the previous location.) But I sure remembered the previous treatment at that Urgent Care. I decided that my pain was concerning enough for a Saturday visit; it felt like a broken bone (it was, though hairline). Drove back to the very same wonderful clinic. Again, only one other patient there, mid-morning on a Saturday. Was seen immediately & given the same thorough, careful, old-fashioned-doctor service. This time I have insurance (was between insurances the previous time); zero out-of-pocket cost. They gave me a sling (no charge), & recommended some other (non-related) preventative & follow-up stuff I should be doing – addressing many different health areas.

Turn the clock back to about 3 months ago. At a different job, different location, I had another unrelated daytime urgent medical need. At that different suburb (middle-to-high income suburb), I looked up whether there were any Urgent Care clinics nearby: yes, 3 minutes from my office and across the street from the swank hospital. Walked in; no appointment needed. Again, I was the only patient. Received instant & professional care. Paid zero. Then, during the week, the concerned doctor called me either 5 or 7 times (I lost count) to make sure I was OK and was doing follow-up.

I haven’t checked out all the 40 or so suburbs in my region, but I’ll bet there are many underused clinics like this, not in seedy areas.

I did not mean poor to mean seedy or a bad area. There are places where there are more poor that are clean and areas with no higher crime than any other place

I really do not think a lot of people know about community health centres, they are amazing. Obama cut $600 million from them though which got a response from president of the National Association of Community Health Centres

Community health centres did 300000 mammograms in 2009 when places like Planned Parenthood did none. Community health centres can provide comprehensive health care, unlike Planned Parenthood, and community health centres should take over from Planned Parenthood for the health services they do provide, except abortion which most community health centres although refer for abortion do not do abortions on site

 

[Elizabeth502]

I really do not think a lot of people know about community health centres, they are amazing. Obama cut $600 million from them though which got a response from president of the National Association of Community Health Centres.

People can’t know about them, or there wouldn’t be zero patients and one patient in them in the 3 times I have patronized them in the last 2 years. And these are not some far-off-the-beaten-track centers or locations. Big signs on them. Maybe people associate such centers, by name, with “factory” care, and therefore don’t investigate. (Even though they are smack dab in the middle of highly respectable retail & professional areas.)

As to the cuts, I don’t know. I do know that I have a relative who works in medicine who has been told that there will be more centers added, but I’m not convinced so far.

 

[_Abyssinia]

People can’t know about them, or there wouldn’t be zero patients and one patient in them in the 3 times I have patronized them in the last 2 years. And these are not some far-off-the-beaten-track centers or locations. Big signs on them. Maybe people associate such centers, by name, with “factory” care, and therefore don’t investigate. (Even though they are smack dab in the middle of highly respectable retail & professional areas.)

As to the cuts, I don’t know. I do know that I have a relative who works in medicine who has been told that there will be more centers added, but I’m not convinced so far.

Wonder what is going to happen to community health centres if ObamaTax is not repealed. I think they may get a lot more clients, from people who can not wait on long waiting lists through ObamaTax

 

[gardener50]

See my post above.

From what I can tell, He paid a tax just for existing!

This is regards to the question – what taxes did Jesus pay? I realize that this is going off-topic, but I would like to point out that this particular tax has nothing to do with taxes levied by or paid to a secular government. (I’ve read the entire thread past seekerz’s posts #548 and #549] and haven’t seen this addressed.)

The tax mentioned in Matthew 17 is known as the temple tax or census tax. In Exodus 30:11-16, the Lord commands Moses to hold a census, to count the people, and each person (man) who is numbered is to pay a half-shekel tax as atonement for his sin. This became a yearly thing.

In Matthew 17:23-26, the temple tax collector approaches Peter and asks, 'doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax? Peter replies, ‘yes.’ Later, Jesus asks Peter:

“What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects (NAB) (RSV-CE says ‘sons’; Douay says ‘children’) or from foreigners?” Jesus had no need to pay this tax, because He was sinless. He is the Son of God.

But He did not want to give offense (NAB and RSV-CE) or give scandal (Douay) so that is why he tells Peter to cast his hook and take the first fish, ‘and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.’

As a note of interest, after the Temple was destroyed, the Romans then imposed this tax on the Jews as tribute for the temple of Jupiter.

Btw, I’m no biblical scholar, but my parish has offered Catholic Scripture Study for the last seven years. A different book each year and I’ve learned a lot. (yes, this is a plug, but it’s a pretty awesome class)

Patricia

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Yep considering the guy who fixes our copy machine charges $75 per hour and our IT guy charges $175 per hour. They also don’t have the overhead a physician has. For example our exam room has thousands of dollars worth of equipment. We have medical supplies which must be used for every patient, plus the cost of disposal of sharps, medical waste etc. We have P.A.'s and a nurse who participate in patient care. They are non low paid employees nor should they be.

There have been numerous plans and structures to replace ObamaTax but the Left doesn’t even acknowledge them, howling that the Republicans have no alternative but to throw granny over a cliff. In a rare moment of honesty Governor Dean (a physician) admitted that Democrats would never address tort reform as a means of reducing the cost of practicing medicine because “the party is beholden to the legal lobby.” The only way to overcome this juggernaut is to replace THEM and then focus on the real issues which do not include taxes on tanning salons and providing free birth control.

Unfortunately as I said earlier this was never about solving the two major issues, access and cost. It was about getting additional control over our lives.

Lisa

Lisa, that figure was from the BLS. It’s income, not intake. 25 years ago, I would charge $45.00 to come to your home to look at your phone. That was quite a bit more than I was paid. Do you see the difference?

Also, the tort/malpractice scare tactic doesn’t hold much in the way of water. The number of cases heard, and decided, by either bench, or jury. Are actually very low. The percent of cases awarded to the plaintiff? Even lower. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=4511

One well known law firm suggests that over 200,00 people die each year from medical malpractice. I don’t know where they got that figure. But, they site among other causes mis-prescribed drugs, and overdoses. Whether that is the fault of the physician, a pharmacist, or the patient themselves is anyone guess. Or, for a judge/jury to decide. But, taking away, a citizens right to seek damages. Or to dictate the amount of damages, is very wrong headed. About what we’ve come to expect from the pro-business/ anti worker Republicans.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Hmmm. Government offers $20 for an office visit. Doctor says “No way”. Government raises reimbursement so there are more docs available… Oh, wait, no, that’s not what’s happening.

I’m repeating myself because you are not offering a cogent counter argument. The government artificially sets rates that are lower than the service is worth. You’re counter argument should address that point.

What? “Will do the most good”? what does that mean?

I think the Doctor is mistaken on the worth of his service. “All the market will bear?”

There are areas with a glut of physicians. Just like there are specialties with the same. Always, there are areas which could use an influx of skilled physicians. Urban centers, and rural areas, generally head up that list. This is where a doctor will do the most good.

Though granted, he may have to drive a Chevy. Just like me.

ATB

p.s. Even with your dancing around the ring. I think I’m landing a few good one.

 

[Dawnia]

Lisa, that figure was from the BLS. It’s income, not intake. 25 years ago, I would charge $45.00 to come to your home to look at your phone. That was quite a bit more than I was paid. Do you see the difference?

Also, the tort/malpractice scare tactic doesn’t hold much in the way of water. The number of cases heard, and decided, by either bench, or jury. Are actually very low. The percent of cases awarded to the plaintiff? Even lower. bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=4511

One well known law firm suggests that over 200,00 people die each year from medical malpractice. I don’t know where they got that figure. But, they site among other causes mis-prescribed drugs, and overdoses. Whether that is the fault of the physician, a pharmacist, or the patient themselves is anyone guess. Or, for a judge/jury to decide. But, taking away, a citizens right to seek damages. Or to dictate the amount of damages, is very wrong headed. About what we’ve come to expect from the pro-business/ anti worker Republicans.

ATB

Very few malpractice cases ever go to court. It is in everyone’s best interest to settle out of court, which is the standard practice.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Very few malpractice cases ever go to court. It is in everyone’s best interest to settle out of court, which is the standard practice.

I see.