Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Mickey_Finn]

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

Thats a good link.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I find your post disturbing. This is a so called ‘health care’ bill which could give the abortion industry nearly $1 billion annually, imagine the abortion clinics they could set up with that money, more baby slaughtering facilities. What about the HHS mandate which forces employers to pay for things that go against their conscience and could close Catholic hospitals, schools, and clinics

There are an estimated 12 million uninsured, and most of these people are eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicaid but they have not signed up. Most of the uninsured earn over $75000 a year, and an estimated 30% of those without insurance are without it for less than 6 months. Illegal immigrants make up big percentage of the uninsured

There is no huge problem with people being uninsured. There is no need for health care overhaul, there is need for moderate free market health reforms which increase accessibility and competition to make health care cheaper. ObamaTax does nothing to address the price of health care, except by increasing health insurance premiums

Abyssinia - Cmatt25 is willing to overlook the direct murder of over 1 million babies just because some people don’t have health insurance. Mind you, they can receive care, and work out a payment plan and are still living.

 

[PaulinVA]

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.

That’s an excellent point as well. To keep costs “down” the government doesn’t pay enough for the services the doctors provide. They say they are keeping costs down but are actually forcing people to be treated in a higher-cost setting. Not very smart in the long run, is it?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Well my vision is not the best but no I’m not legally blind. Thanks to correction and having at one time to pay 5 digits out of pocket towards eye surgeries, one eye is good. But it was that or go blind. So I know something about this debate. And universal health care insurance coverage for all is something I am most passionate about. But regardless of my vision, what I was addressing was the spin going around in conservative circles about the healthcare tax for not having coverage. Anyway to address your point, I’d prefer taxes going towards health care for people than some of the things tax dollars are spent on. As I recall the $92,000 figure was up to that amount for a family of 4. I don’t know about you but I want that family including their 2 children to have good coverage. I’d certainly rather see that than tax dollars being used for instance to drop bombs on people. Anyway not sure why you said “you’re welcome”. But for whatever reason it was, I guess you thought a “thank you” was warranted. So thank you.

You do realize that military expenditures are less than a third of the federal budget?

Secondly, you have your sight don’t you? That is worth quite a bit of money, isn’t it?

 

[SamH]

That’s an excellent point as well. To keep costs “down” the government doesn’t pay enough for the services the doctors provide. They say they are keeping costs down but are actually forcing people to be treated in a higher-cost setting. Not very smart in the long run, is it?

Or the short run.

 

[SamH]

Well my vision is not the best but no I’m not legally blind. Thanks to correction and having at one time to pay 5 digits out of pocket towards eye surgeries, one eye is good.

Wow, five digits to save your sight - how much do you think you should have spent?

The part that’s really going to hurt us is the $2500 limit flexible spending accounts. This year we went through $8500 for deductables, perscriptions and uncovered dental and next year we will go through even more - Obamatax limits it to $2500 per family. How’s that going to encourage people to utilize preventive medicines?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Wow, five digits to save your sight - how much do you think you should have spent?

The part that’s really going to hurt us is the $2500 limit flexible spending accounts. This year we went through $8500 for deductables, perscriptions and uncovered dental and next year we will go through even more - Obamatax limits it to $2500 per family. How’s that going to encourage people to utilize preventive medicines?

He probably thinks he should pay $0, and the evil 1% should pick up the bill

 

[scipio337]

Thats a good link.

Most recent polls are concerning the actual court ruling, but there are several out there showing > 50% opposed.

CNN/ORC Poll. May 29-31, 2012. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

“As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country’s health care system became law in 2010. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?”

pollingreport.com/health.htm

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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*.

Who wants to keep poor people “hidden and quiet?” Are we living in a different country?

 

[Ridgerunner]

There were people who did not have insurance. Nobody knew for sure how many there were or why, exactly, they didn’t have insurance. Some, everyone knows, were between jobs and didn’t have insurance for that reason. Some didn’t want it. Some were illegals. Some would qualify for Medicaid but hadn’t bothered and wouldn’t bother until they needed it. Some, undoubtedly, didn’t have their preexisting conditions covered and didn’t have employer-provided ERISA qualified plans that put a time limit on the exclusion.

So, for this uncertain number, the entire system was changed irrevocably. Nobody knows for sure how it’s going to work. Nobody is terribly clear on what it’s going to cost anyone. Nobody really knows how the interaction of state and federal actions will work. Nobody knows what mandates Obama is going to require. (Who would have thought he would mandate contraceptive and abortifacient coverage?) Abortion cannot possibly NOT be included as a mandate in a second Obama term.

And we gave the executive plenery powers to do just about anything he wants to do with it, with no real controls and no idea how he is going to use it politically. (Which, of course the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate is) What other favored groups are out there? Nobody knows but Obama. Well, he did exempt the unions already from the “Cadillac plan” tax. Not you or me unless we’re in a union. We’ll pay a 40% tax on it if that’s what we or our employer can afford. (And some employers do provide “Cadillac plans” for their employees. Tax free now, but not in the future.) Clearly the elderly are not favored or he would not be removing a half trillion from Medicare.

Nobody can seriously doubt its negative effect on employment. The “well worker” effect will disappear, which will penalize industrial workers. Employers will have to make sure they do not have so many as one employee (over the 30 exception) who is subsidized, or he will have to pay a penalty for all the remaining employees even if they’re not subsidized.

And what good is a subsidy really going to be if it doesn’t cover the increased costs caused by politically-motivated mandates? At the upper end of the subsidies, it’s almost certain they won’t cover the additional cost. Obamacare has already increased premiums by $1300/year. Somep predict much more than that when Obamacare is fully implemented. If your subsidy won’t cover your additional cost, what good is it to you?

It won’t be good for your neighbor who doesn’t get a subsidy, and that’s for sure. Unexpected results? Maybe. Maybe not. There never was an honest and thorough national debate on all of this, and everybody knows it. Personally, I don’t think we will have any idea what all kinds of unanticipated results there are going to be for years.

One does seem to be that if states don’t have their own exchanges, the individual mandate “tax/penalty” might not be enforceable against employers there. A potential loophole, and does anybody really think Congress is going to close that one?

Nancy Pelosi was only half right when she said they would have to pass it in order to know what’s in it. The other half is that we’ll probably have to live with it for years before anyone really knows all the twists, turns and weird results there are going to be, particularly after item after item after item is litigated. It’s true that will help lawyers out financially, but it’s simply going to be confusing to everyone else.

And all of this when the real need in this country was jobs and a reduction in the deficit so those foreigners with dollars would have to buy American goods and services with them instead of debt. But never mind that. If we’re going to be a welfare state, might as well skip the intermediate steps and become Greece right off that bat. Trouble is, of course, that Germany isn’t big enough to bail us out and has no obligation to do it anyway.

We don’t have a rational comprehensive healthcare plan now, any more than we did before. (Well, at least without Obamacare, the system was largely comprehensible) What we do have is an ideological victory by the left; the full consequences of which nobody truly knows. Not even them.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

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.

Elizabeth, It was a while ago. A lot has changed in our society since then.
But, I feel the hurdles that prevented the former system from succeeding remain. Perhaps with the advent of the self oriented, neo conservative TEA party faction. Even more hurdles are in place.

A lot of the money we put into healthcare, both public and private, is wasted. Our government believes they lose over $60 Billion every year to fraud. Much of it perpetrated by Doctors, and their “associates”. They are putting a lot of effort into combating this. hhs.gov/asl/testify/2010/03/t20100304a.html The private concerns are hemorrhaging money as well.
nhcaa.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=anti_fraud_resource_centr&wpscode=TheProblemOfHCFraud

Obviously, it’s not just the money lost. There are people attached to these crimes. Who suffer needlessly.

Any system that is cost effective is going to be a tremendous improvement. A system free of fraud, of course, is a pipe dream. So, If the hurdles I mentioned are removed. We could see a system like your purporting succeed.

ATB

 

[Ridgerunner]

The part that’s really going to hurt us is the $2500 limit flexible spending accounts. This year we went through $8500 for deductables, perscriptions and uncovered dental and next year we will go through even more - Obamatax limits it to $2500 per family. How’s that going to encourage people to utilize preventive medicines?

It won’t. The people who have the foresight to invest in medical savings accounts are the sort who also get their checkups and such. Most people don’t.

But they are going to enforce the “preventive medicine” thing, and have already started doing it by increasing reimbursement for “well care” and decreasing it for treatment of chronic conditions. But it will get worse.

By (I think) 2016, all medical records will be on one system. Medical providers are presently rewarded financially by keeping records on who engages in “well care” and who doesn’t and keeping their averages high. By 2016, they will be penalized instead, if a high percentage of their patients don’t. So, if one is, say, overweight, and is admonished to lose “X” number of pounds, but doesn’t, then that provider will be penalized if it keeps that person as a patient. Same with people who don’t put “advanced directives” in their charts.

Since Obama alone will be able to determine what all is “preventive care” (we already know contraceptives and abortifacients are, according to him) during his term, if we don’t follow his idea of what we ought to be doing, we’re increasingly likely to be dropped. We might have insurance, but not a doctor. Naturally, people with chronic conditions are more likely to be “noncompliant” than those who are healthy and don’t need to comply with anything in particular except perhaps limiting their family size.

That whole process is already in place. It’s just not as punitive as it could be yet. But in 2016, we’ll see just how complete was the victory of the Party of Death.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Obamacare includes a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery. Even though cosmetic surgery is not covered by insurance, if you save up your money to have “work done,” you will still be taxed for it.

I guess Nancy Pelosi is exempt, though.

 

[Dawnia]

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.

We have quite a few of the limited service clinics here. I love them! There are no appointments, little waiting and the docs do only what you ask of them. I used them almost exclusively when I had employer provided insurance because they were much cheaper than going to the regular doc and I had to pay all of my medical expenses out of my own pocket anyway. (Never met the $2000 deductible). They are also used to working for people who don’t have insurance so they didn’t prescribe the newest most expensive drugs available. They prescribed the cheapest drug that would do the trick.

My entire visit, including medication, cost less than a single office call at the regular docs office.

 

[SamH]

A lot of the money we put into healthcare, both public and private, is wasted. Our government believes they lose over $60 Billion every year to fraud. Much of it perpetrated by Doctors, and their “associates”. They are putting a lot of effort into combating this. hhs.gov/asl/testify/2010/03/t20100304a.html The private concerns are hemorrhaging money as well.
nhcaa.org/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?webcode=anti_fraud_resource_centr&wpscode=TheProblemOfHCFraud
ATB

The fact the government is losing 60 billion a year (they actually estimate it between 80 and 160 billion) on fraud alone should tell you something. Why not fix their own problems first before making a mess of the rest of the system?

usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11504338-feds-announce-biggest-ever-medicare-fraud-totaling-450-million?lite

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The fact the government is losing 60 billion a year (they actually estimate it between 80 and 160 billion) on fraud alone should tell you something. Why not fix their own problems first before making a mess of the rest of the system?

usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11504338-feds-announce-biggest-ever-medicare-fraud-totaling-450-million?lite

Because it’s not about fixing problems?

(I know YOU know this)

 

[SamH]

We have quite a few of the limited service clinics here. I love them! There are no appointments, little waiting and the docs do only what you ask of them. I used them almost exclusively when I had employer provided insurance because they were much cheaper than going to the regular doc and I had to pay all of my medical expenses out of my own pocket anyway. (Never met the $2000 deductible). They are also used to working for people who don’t have insurance so they didn’t prescribe the newest most expensive drugs available. They prescribed the cheapest drug that would do the trick.

My entire visit, including medication, cost less than a single office call at the regular docs office.

See post #357.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

Every Word.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

THIS is an excellent post.

Scott, I’m seeing this as more of a rant. Granted, I have zero tolerance for the TEA mentality.
The biggest problem with our healthcare system is that it’s ran for profit. The biggest offenders by far are the Pharmaceutical companies. As an example, I’'l offer the Lilly Cyanide poinoning treatment. “the lilly kit”. Ineffective, and toxic in it’s own right. It is also vey expensive. Come along the French.The French. They devise a system that cost about $25.00. Nontoxic, and effective. Now how do you suppose that happens?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Apparently Democrats could care less that they are bald-faced hypocrites. Most of the people who support the Democrats consider the for profit insurance industry to be “evil”, in that they are making cash hand over fist in profits from people’s health care crisis. Now, they are celebrating the fact that the federal government is going to force them to be clients of the health insurance companies.

And what is that economic system which marries the central government to private industry?

Oh ya. Fascism. So, Democrats were right all along. They are not socialists. They are fascists. This ACA law, affirmed by the Supreme Court, proves without counter-arguement, that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and all of the Congressional Democrats are indeed fascists.