Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
What I truly don’t get, is how it is okay for government to accept that people without insurance must suffer or die without care, but people with insurance must be protected at whatever cost is demanded? The only word I can think of for that scenario, is schizophrenic.
Click to expand...
But seekerz, that claim is just a ludicruous that a government can’t impose any taxes.

We’ve had EMTALA for over two decades, and charity care has been around even longer.

People weren’t dying in the streets for want of healthcare, prior to 2010.
 
Thats liberal thinking for ya… twist the words to fit thier own needs.
bellasbane said:
I hate it when people apply modern political theory to interpretations of scripture to justify the separation of church and state. That whole line of reasoning is a product of the Protestant Reformation. Since I’m a Catholic and know my Church history - that doesn’t really work with me.

The Catholic Church has always viewed government as a vehicle for doing God’s work on earth. Jesus said pay your taxes. He also said we should pray to God to “give us this day our daily bread”. Well, who distributed “daily bread” to the people of Rome? That would be the Roman government. Jesus knew this. I don’t recall any scriptures where he argues against this arrangement. Do you think he meant we should expect it fall down like manna from heaven?

If you are not getting insurance benefits from your employer and have to buy insurance on your own, then I can see how a person making $91,000 a year with a family of four would be hard pressed to pay for it without help. Having that albatross lifted would certainly free people up to spend more money in other areas of the economy, which is exactly what we need to get it moving again.
Click to expand...
 
LisaA said:
seekerz perhaps you came late to the party but doctors reimbursement has been dropping since the 1980s, pretty dramatically at that. In the meantime though the cost of becoming a doctor, the cost of practicing, have all increased. One of the biggest culprits is again the federal government demanding a certain type of medical record which sounds like a great idea until you realize the downside including massive costs for computers, software, training etc.
Click to expand...
I’m finding your posts a mite confusing, so I’m going to have to take it slow.

Do you have figures to show the reimbursement trends? I’m particularly interested in the years that relate to the ACA, because my information is that recent scheduled cuts have been postponed time and again.
Again with Obamacare there will be more people on the low paying government plans. Have you tried to find a doctor for a Medicare or Medicaid patient lately? Most will not take any new patients with these insurance plans. Oh and the rules are such that if someone could PAY the difference between what the doc charges and Medicare pays he or she is NOT allowed to pay it! IOW another provision that works to make reimbursement lower.
Click to expand...
My impression is that under Obamacare, the rise in premiums will slow for everyone and out-of-pocket cost will fall (as happened in Massachusetts). I don’t see how that necessarily decreases reimbursement, because the total pool will be larger, but I may be looking at this from the wrong angle. I do know that right now doctors, out of the goodness of their hearts, quite often accept people who can’t afford care - so I really don’t think that giving them the ability to pay the doctors is the equivalent of a disaster.
You might think it is simply scaremongering to say there will be fewer doctors but it is absolutely true. The residencies that used to be fought over can’t be filled. More doctors are retiring than coming on and with the implementation of Obamacare there will be more who retire or cut back.
Click to expand...
Again, stats would be nice because then we might see how much of that is related to the intricacies of the profession (pre-dating the ACA). I personally know of docs who would have loved to jump ship midway due to professional stresses and poor fit with their specialites, were it not for their enormous student debt. Maybe the word’s getting out that there are easier ways in the world to acquire money and prestige while helping people…
The mandates for preventative care such as CONTRACEPTION must be provided at no cost…oh and the usual suspects mammograms, paps, etc.
Click to expand...
That’s news to me, I though it was the ***insurance companies ***providing those services to their members with no out-of-pocket costs associated - loosely labelled as ‘free’ preventive care. Are you asserting that it is the doctors being asked to provide this care free of charge?
 
Jeffrey said:
Thats liberal thinking for ya… twist the words to fit thier own needs.
Click to expand...
Seriously. If it is true that the Church enjoys Caesar’s cooperation in serving the “poor”, it probably needs to be reminded just how fickle and violent a master Caesar is.
 
seekerz said:
What I truly don’t get, is how it is okay for government to accept that people without insurance must suffer or die without care, but people with insurance must be protected at whatever cost is demanded? The only word I can think of for that scenario, is schizophrenic.
Click to expand...
seekerz you are not being honest here. People without insurance do not suffer and die without care in this country except in rare circumstances.

Actually one of the supposed problems that suggested a need for Obamacare was the number of uninsured who use the emergency rooms for care. While this is a reality there are many many options for uninsured including every Catholic hospital and every doctor practicing in a Catholic hospital. There are also free clinics, low cost clinics, etc.

This is not Bangladesh, people are not dying in the streets here. Please quit sensationalizing the issue to make a point.

LIsa
 
seekerz said:
I’m finding your posts a mite confusing, so I’m going to have to take it slow.

Do you have figures to show the reimbursement trends? I’m particularly interested in the years that relate to the ACA, because my information is that recent scheduled cuts have been postponed time and again.

My impression is that under Obamacare, the rise in premiums will slow for everyone and out-of-pocket cost will fall (as happened in Massachusetts). I don’t see how that necessarily decreases reimbursement, because the total pool will be larger, but I may be looking at this from the wrong angle. I do know that right now doctors, out of the goodness of their hearts, quite often accept people who can’t afford care - so I really don’t think that giving them the ability to pay the doctors is the equivalent of a disaster.

Again, stats would be nice because then we might see how much of that is related to the intricacies of the profession (pre-dating the ACA). I personally know of docs who would have loved to jump ship midway due to professional stresses and poor fit with their specialites, were it not for their enormous student debt. Maybe the word’s getting out that there are easier ways in the world to acquire money and prestige while helping people…

That’s news to me, I though it was the ***insurance companies ***providing those services to their members with no out-of-pocket costs associated - loosely labelled as ‘free’ preventive care. Are you asserting that it is the doctors being asked to provide this care free of charge?
Click to expand...
a) I told you the Doc Fix was postponed year after year. That isn’t the point
b) Premiums have already begun to rise in ANTICIPATION of Obamacare
c) Really you go to Blue Cross for a pap smear?

As to your statement:
**
Maybe the word’s getting out that there are easier ways in the world to acquire money and prestige while helping people…

**

How incredibly rude and uncharitable. Yes doctors are mostly in it for “money and prestige” although they may get a bit of good karma for helping people.

I really think your attitude colors your view of this issue. I hope you have some appreciation for doctors who have or may help you in the future. Your dismissive and unkind view of dedicated physicians is really uncalled for. I guess there is no point in engaging since your mind is made up. Doctors are the real problem.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
This article is the most complete and historically accurate rendering of the “Render unto Caesar” passage I have ever read. Jesus is not endorsing the payment of taxes. The Pharisees set a trap for Christ and Christ trips their ambush and makes them all look stupid, by couching the counter argument in terms of loyalty to God.

lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html
Click to expand...
Interesting article, yet I am struck by the footnotes of the NAB on the USCCB website for Matthew chapter 22:
  • [22:19] They handed him the Roman coin: their readiness in producing the money implies their use of it and their acceptance of the financial advantages of the Roman administration in Palestine.
Click to expand...
  • [22:21] Caesar’s: the emperor Tiberius (A.D. 14–37). Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: those who willingly use the coin that is Caesar’s should repay him in kind. The answer avoids taking sides in the question of the lawfulness of the tax. To God what belongs to God: Jesus raises the debate to a new level. Those who have hypocritically asked about tax in respect to its relation to the law of God should be concerned rather with repaying God with the good deeds that are his due; cf. Mt 21:41, 43.
Click to expand...
 
LisaA said:
seekerz you are not being honest here. People without insurance do not suffer and die without care in this country except in rare circumstances.

Actually one of the supposed problems that suggested a need for Obamacare was the number of uninsured who use the emergency rooms for care. While this is a reality there are many many options for uninsured including every Catholic hospital and every doctor practicing in a Catholic hospital. There are also free clinics, low cost clinics, etc.

This is not Bangladesh, people are not dying in the streets here. Please quit sensationalizing the issue to make a point.

LIsa
Click to expand...
You accuse me of dishonesty? Here are my exact words:

“What I truly don’t get, is how it is okay for government to accept that people without insurance must suffer or die without care”

Now, did you listen to the debate where a heckler interrupted Ron Paul with ‘let him die’? I have heard that sentiment repeated many times in different ways since and have failed to see that view decisively repudiated by anyone with a significant position of leadership in that party.

So tell me, who is being dishonest? Is there or isn’t there a part of our society that would prefer government to accept that uninsured people should suffer and die than get subsidized coverage?

While we’re on the topic, do you have figures on how rare it is for someone to suffer or die because of lack of access to care for non-emergencies? People enduring or dying from preventable complications of diseases that were never adequately treated for example? How rare are those cases? I’m not sure, are you?
 
LisaA said:
Please quit equating the entire 2700 page bill (plus triple that in regulations) with the concept of the mandate. The mandate is the focus because it was one of the issues being litigated and the hope was that if it were struck down then the whole thing would implode due to the severability clause.

The devil is in the details…the 2700 pages with all of the provisions such as the IPAB aka the Death Panel, the various mandates, the take over of the student loan program, the device taxes, the new investment taxes…I could go on forever.

The theory that this is the same as Romneycare is a total canard and not the product of the ‘evil right wingers.’ Ditto with the mandate being dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation.

The GOP NEVER supported a mandate even if some of its members may have thought this a good solution. On the surface it seems so but in reality has many detrimental results, particularly the perverse incentives.

You need to quit worrying about the evil right wing. It’s been the Left throughout history that has created the kind of nightmares you suggest.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Have you personally read the 2700 page bill? If so, then by all means, go on forever…

If not, then your claims are not your own ideas, but just a load of right wing propaganda. Case in point, the phrase “Death panels” does not appear anywhere in the bill.

As for whether the GOP ever supported the individual mandate, the leader of the GOP (i.e. your “severely conservative” presidential nominee) personally signed it into law in Massachusetts. That sounds like support to me.

The terrible living conditions of the working class in Victorian London had nothing to do with the Left and everything to do with the exploitation of labor by unrestricted capitalism. That’s the only nightmare scenario I’ve discussed on this forum and it is one that the Catholic Church worked hard to reform - so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
 
Just curious, but if one of these people who don’t buy something they don’t want shows up a the emergency room, should they be turned away?
Holly3278 said:
I do not agree with it because people should not be forced to buy something they don’t want, in this case health insurance.
Click to expand...
 
stevegravy said:
Why do the signs in the federal parks say “Don’t feed the Animals”?
Click to expand...
How about “A fed bear is a dead bear”? I saw this at Glacier Nat’l Park and heard the explanation at a camp talk. Bears are opportunistic and will always take a handout, but if you don’t feed it consistently or stop feeding altogether, that’s when they become a nuisance or worse and have to shipped out of the territory and back into the wilds.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
Just curious, but if one of these people who don’t buy something they don’t want shows up a the emergency room, should they be turned away?
Click to expand...
Are you asking metaphorically or rationally. Rationally they have to be treated by law.
 
wynnejj said:
How about “A fed bear is a dead bear”? I saw this at Glacier Nat’l Park and heard the explanation at a camp talk. Bears are opportunistic and will always take a handout, but if you don’t feed it consistently or stop feeding altogether, that’s when they become a nuisance or worse and have to shipped out of the territory and back into the wilds.
Click to expand...
Then why in heavens name do good Christians want to kill off the human spirit by making it a fed bear, metaphorically speaking? :confused:
 
bellasbane said:
Have you personally read the 2700 page bill? If so, then by all means, go on forever…

If not, then your claims are not your own ideas, but just a load of right wing propaganda. Case in point, the phrase “Death panels” does not appear anywhere in the bill…
Click to expand...
Who was it who defended not reading (or understanding) the bill?

by your standard, no one in Congress could comment on it.

…
The terrible living conditions of the working class in Victorian London had nothing to do with the Left and everything to do with the exploitation of labor by unrestricted capitalism. That’s the only nightmare scenario I’ve discussed on this forum and it is one that the Catholic Church worked hard to reform - so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the 94 million dead due to Marx’s “cure” for those ills? It’s also one the Church worked hard to reform, some even giving their lives.
 
seekerz said:
What I truly don’t get, is how it is okay for government to accept that people without insurance must suffer or die without care, but people with insurance must be protected at whatever cost is demanded? The only word I can think of for that scenario, is schizophrenic.
Click to expand...
I would call it “Plain Crazy” 🙂 👍
 
bellasbane said:
Have you personally read the 2700 page bill? If so, then by all means, go on forever…

If not, then your claims are not your own ideas, but just a load of right wing propaganda. Case in point, the phrase “Death panels” does not appear anywhere in the bill.

As for whether the GOP ever supported the individual mandate, the leader of the GOP (i.e. your “severely conservative” presidential nominee) personally signed it into law in Massachusetts. That sounds like support to me.

The terrible living conditions of the working class in Victorian London had nothing to do with the Left and everything to do with the exploitation of labor by unrestricted capitalism. That’s the only nightmare scenario I’ve discussed on this forum and it is one that the Catholic Church worked hard to reform - so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Massachusetts is a state, and America is a federalist country where states can experiment with their health care, Romney supports that

Romney wanted people to be able to escape the individual mandate with people being allowed to post a bond if they were uninsured and had large medical bills. When Romney signed RomneyCare in to law, he thought that the bill contained this escape but legislators took it out. Romney opposed the employer mandate and vetoed but was overridden by the Democrat legislature which was over 80%

Does this sound like Romney supported a mandate like the ObamaTax mandate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top