Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Elizabeth502]

We tried the “doc in a box” satelite clinic plan in the eighties-ninties.

Fine. This is 20-30 years later. And I wasn’t referring to “doc in a box,” although I appreciate that some of my post probably sounded that way. I was referring to what many other countries do, quite successfully, and to the kinds of clinics I have patronized here. It requires moving away from the current structures (which you are describing as the model), and having different cooperative structures. I will tell you that medical professionals love the kind I’m talking about. Please see my posts on other threads about the contented healthcare workers in these clinics, who get to actually practice medicine. These clinics do work. There aren’t enough of them. And those that exist are underpublicized.

They are pay as you go. (No billing.) Prices are moderate. Care is efficient. The middle class can afford it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not at all. The clinics in drug stores and employer’s offices are making a comeback.

Telemedicine (like MD LiveCare) are also gaining traction.

The issue is getting enough primary care docs and PAs to try people in the right place. If they are medicaid people and don’t have transportation, you need to mmet them where they are.

 

[OriginalJS]

I agree with the ruling because it is a first step toward affordable, universal health care enjoyed similar to what other advanced countries have. It will be a hard, long, battle, but sooner or later we may get there. I can think of nothing that would improve the economy of the US more than taking away this burden of provision for health coverage. I know far to many who stay at jobs because of the health care benefit. If people didn’t have that sword hanging over their heads they would be freed up to try new businesses and jobs. Also, I believe that Catholic Social Teaching supports adequate health care for all.

 

[OriginalJS]

If ppl are unwilling to work for a living then thats on them to get healthcare. I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else to get healthcare. Plain and simple. Its wrong to take from someone working to give it to ppl that want a free ride.

Well, the country is full of “free riders.” I don’t agree with them either. But how about people who work who don’t have adequate health care and are bankrupted by medical bills for serious conditions? Should society write them off and just turn away? I don’t think so. We are all going to get old, get sick, and die. The country is rich enough to provide a modicum of decency for all. Catholics are always emphasizing that life should be respected from conception to natural death. I totally agree. Providing reasonable medical care for all is one way to respect life.

 

[austenbosten]

I agree with the ruling because it is a first step toward affordable, universal health care enjoyed similar to what other advanced countries have. It will be a hard, long, battle, but sooner or later we may get there. I can think of nothing that would improve the economy of the US more than taking away this burden of provision for health coverage. I know far to many who stay at jobs because of the health care benefit. If people didn’t have that sword hanging over their heads they would be freed up to try new businesses and jobs. Also, I believe that Catholic Social Teaching supports adequate health care for all.

What makes you think that the other nations UHC systems are affordable? I can provide documents proving the NHS trusts are bankrupt, but I don’t even need to go there…all I can do is show the Medicare and Medicaid trusts because they are already bankrupt with Trillions of dollars in unfunded Liabilities. You think the economy will improve when the US government takes over the HC industry? You mean how the economy has improved under Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, you know the programs that are bankrupting the United States and thus hurting our economy.

You know many who stay at jobs because of the health benefits? I know a lot of people who are stuck in their jobs because of the money they can get to buy food and housing…does that mean the government should expand Food Stamps and Section 8 Housing universally in order to free people from the burden of working jobs so they can eat and have a place to sleep?

I don’t think Catholic doctrine supports Socialization of the Health Care in industry.

Either way this ruling hurts those who are struggling to pay bills and do not qualify for Medicaid and are now forced to purchase a product they didn’t have to before. So now more people are going to suffer because others believe the nation needs to take up the mantel of personal responsibility.

Well, the country is full of “free riders.” I don’t agree with them either. But how about people who work who don’t have adequate health care and are bankrupted by medical bills for serious conditions? Should society write them off and just turn away? I don’t think so. We are all going to get old, get sick, and die. T**he country is rich enough to provide a modicum of decency for all. ** Catholics are always emphasizing that life should be respected from conception to natural death. I totally agree. Providing reasonable medical care for all is one way to respect life.

I strongly don’t think Catholics agree to the Marxist utopia you espouse. Life is not meant to be perfected by man, so we do nothing in this life to prepare for the next.

 

[wynnejj]

This is the only tax that taxes you for not doing something.

Yes. Whether tax or penalty, the individual mandate is forcing or coercing new health insurance commerce. I fail to see how a tax or penalty designation can really escape the scope & intent of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[_Abyssinia]

No Abyssinia, we definetly need an overhaul.

ATB

Most Americans want ObamaTax repealed. They are not supportive of an overhaul of health care

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Most Americans want ObamaTax repealed. They are not supportive of an overhaul of health care

Link?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Not at all. The clinics in drug stores and employer’s offices are making a comeback.

Telemedicine (like MD LiveCare) are also gaining traction.

The issue is getting enough primary care docs and PAs to try people in the right place. If they are medicaid people and don’t have transportation, you need to mmet them where they are.

We aren’t seeing that yet, here. We are seeing hospitals closing their satelites, and expanding there main facilities. Greatly expanding, in many cases.

ATB

 

[_Abyssinia]

Link?

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You are correct. Additionally, the quality of the care that we will be allowed to have will be much less than what we have not. Like so many things, we are lowering our medical care to the lowest common denominator.

Sounds exactly like what we have done to our federally mandated, federally funded, federally regulated public education system.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Affordable access to healthcare is a basic human right. This is Catholic doctrine, as infallibly taught by the Popes.

Since it is readily apparent that markets have proven themselves incapable of providing this human right, governments MUST intervene. It belongs to the state to maintain the common good, and part of maintaining the common good is insuring that everyone within the state’s purview has access to affordable health care.

Is forcing someone else to pay for your (food housing healthcare etc…) a basic human right? I know alot of people in the south used the bible to justify slavery.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Well, the country is full of “free riders.” I don’t agree with them either. But how about people who work who don’t have adequate health care and are bankrupted by medical bills for serious conditions? Should society write them off and just turn away? I don’t think so. We are all going to get old, get sick, and die. The country is rich enough to provide a modicum of decency for all. Catholics are always emphasizing that life should be respected from conception to natural death. I totally agree. Providing reasonable medical care for all is one way to respect life.

The government has shown no ability to do that. Cronyism and bureaucracy and waste are the order of the day. Has the “War on Poverty” or the incredible amounts of taxes spent on education been demonstrated to help? Quite the reverse. We are not the best educated and we now have a permanent underclass that sees government largess as a political right.

Making people answer to bureaucrats for their cancer treatment is not an increase in dignity; it is a decrease. Instead of being a customer, the patient is now a supplicant and the 'crat is a bean counter when relating back, which is not an appropriate relationship from one human to another.

Government does not possess any subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is an integral, required part of the giving principal for the needy. Without it, the spiritual component is removed or deadened. The receiver becomes a dependent because their individual worth, their humanity, is not recognized and the donor becomes resentful because they did not choose to give but were compelled.

We had the best health care in the world. We could have made incremental improvements that would have made a real positive difference and also reinforced subsidiarity. This plan is the product of a pro-death party that does not value the intrinsic value of life. To expect a good result from a President and congress who hold such spiritual views is foolhardy “We have to pass it to know what is in it.” “burden with a child”

The watchword is power.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The government has shown no ability to do that. Cronyism and bureaucracy and waste are the order of the day. Has the “War on Poverty” or the incredible amounts of taxes spent on education been demonstrated to help? Quite the reverse. We are not the best educated and we now have a permanent underclass that sees government largess as a political right.

Making people answer to bureaucrats for their cancer treatment is not an increase in dignity; it is a decrease. Instead of being a customer, the patient is now a supplicant and the 'crat is a bean counter when relating back, which is not an appropriate relationship from one human to another.

Government does not possess any subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is an integral, required part of the giving principal for the needy. Without it, the spiritual component is removed or deadened. The receiver becomes a dependent because their individual worth, their humanity, is not recognized and the donor becomes resentful because they did not choose to give but were compelled.

We had the best health care in the world. We could have made incremental improvements that would have made a real positive difference and also reinforced subsidiarity. This plan is the product of a pro-death party that does not value the intrinsic value of life. To expect a good result from a President and congress who hold such spiritual views is foolhardy “We have to pass it to know what is in it.” “burden with a child”

The watchword is power.

Excellent response. May I correct your last quote, however - Pelosi actually said, “We have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.” Implying of course, that SHE knew what was in it (I don’t believe she did or does, but that is what she implied).

This is what I have been repeating for years. It’s not only about health care but welfare. Remove the personal connection between the giver and the given to, and the entire relationship is lost, obviously. “Government” cannot have a connection to an individual. When FDR started all his federal programs that prolonged the Great Depression, a nation in desperation began losing its foundation of freedom. People began seeing the government not as a necessary evil, but a savior. Now, 80 some years later, it’s firmly entrenched in people’s minds - that you look to the government to help you.

I honestly do not see a way back to who we used to be as a nation. And the Constitution that formed our nation was not made for a country like this.

 

[stevegravy]

To correct and clarify the difference between taxes and theft several posters have commented:

Taxes are monies and wealth taken from citizens by the government and are called legal.

Theft is monies and wealth taken from citizens by other citizens and are called illegal.

See the difference, government with all its guns and lawyers decides what is legal.

Those who live by taking and distributing the wealth of others have a vested interest in keeping and expanding the plantation.

 

[PaulinVA]

I was watching a special on CNN by Fareed Zakaria on healthcare spending. He posited that 5% of Americans spend 50% of the healthcare dollars.

So, if we effectively treat that 5%. we are going to see savings in taxes and we are going to see increased productivity in this 5%. His examples were mainly medicaid people. Some went to the ER every other day because their diseases were not under control.

Businesses know that if you manage the people with chronic conditions you can see savings in both healthcare costs, absenteeism, and quality of life.

How does giving everyone insurance (even if they can’t afford the deductibles or copays) help the people with the problems?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The government has shown no ability to do that. Cronyism and bureaucracy and waste are the order of the day. Has the “War on Poverty” or the incredible amounts of taxes spent on education been demonstrated to help? Quite the reverse. We are not the best educated and we now have a permanent underclass that sees government largess as a political right.

Making people answer to bureaucrats for their cancer treatment is not an increase in dignity; it is a decrease. Instead of being a customer, the patient is now a supplicant and the 'crat is a bean counter when relating back, which is not an appropriate relationship from one human to another.

Government does not possess any subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is an integral, required part of the giving principal for the needy. Without it, the spiritual component is removed or deadened. The receiver becomes a dependent because their individual worth, their humanity, is not recognized and the donor becomes resentful because they did not choose to give but were compelled.

We had the best health care in the world. We could have made incremental improvements that would have made a real positive difference and also reinforced subsidiarity. This plan is the product of a pro-death party that does not value the intrinsic value of life. To expect a good result from a President and congress who hold such spiritual views is foolhardy “We have to pass it to know what is in it.” “burden with a child”

The watchword is power.

THIS is an excellent post.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I was watching a special on CNN by Fareed Zakaria on healthcare spending. He posited that 5% of Americans spend 50% of the healthcare dollars.

So, if we effectively treat that 5%. we are going to see savings in taxes and we are going to see increased productivity in this 5%. His examples were mainly medicaid people. Some went to the ER every other day because their diseases were not under control.

Businesses know that if you manage the people with chronic conditions you can see savings in both healthcare costs, absenteeism, and quality of life.

How does giving everyone insurance (even if they can’t afford the deductibles or copays) help the people with the problems?

We could assign each of those people in the 5% their own personal doctor 24/7/365 and it would be a better use of our tax dollars than the current legislation.

 

[PaulinVA]

We could assign each of those people in the 5% their own personal doctor 24/7/365 and it would be a better use of our tax dollars than the current legislation.

Well, unfortunately, a lot of these people are poor, and we just want to keep them hidden and quiet.

We were discussing earlier the idea of minute clinics and the like. One of the strategies in New Jersey was actually opening a clinic in a public housing building. Much better care, better preventive care, for people who need it.

If the government wants to federalize the healthcare system, they should do things to actually treat people. They should expand the programs to pay off doctor’s student loan debt if they would dedicate 5 or ten years to practicing as a primary care doc in an underserved place. They should open clinics and medical equipment shops. Doing that* does not compete* with established medical practices because* they are not there*.

 

[SamH]

I was watching a special on CNN by Fareed Zakaria on healthcare spending. He posited that 5% of Americans spend 50% of the healthcare dollars.

So, if we effectively treat that 5%. we are going to see savings in taxes and we are going to see increased productivity in this 5%. His examples were mainly medicaid people. Some went to the ER every other day because their diseases were not under control.

They also go to the ER because the government reimbursement rate is so low that no doctors will treat them. Soon everyone will get to share in that problem.

We run into that problem with our foster children all the time. They arrive on Medicaid and only one or two local doctors will see them, long waits to schedule well visits and virtually no unscheduled appointments (like ear infections) can be made. None of the local “convenience clinics” that are open on weekends will take Medicaid - when we called and asked about this they said to use the ER.