Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[stevegravy]

Massachusetts is a state, and America is a federalist countries where states can experiment with their health care, Romney supports that

I believe it is time we stop mourning birth rights lost. We were a federal republic and are now surfs to the whims of congress as long as they compel obedience with a tax. At least for now. The next Roberts Court order my find the whip constitutional.

 

[bellasbane]

Who was it who defended not reading (or understanding) the bill?

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

Fair enough, but at least they should limit themselves to commenting on the parts they did read and think critically about the commentaries they read by others.

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.

Of course not, there are plenty of nightmare scenarios to go around. I don’t agree with Marx’s cure only his diagnosis of the problem.

 

[LisaA]

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?

seekerz you have become totally disingenuous here. So a heckler said something at a Ron Paul event and somehow you translate this to people are dying in the streets due to a lack of insurance? Come on, that’s a bit of a stretch. There are nuts at every public event. You think we need to take this seriously?

Ditto with the theory there are vast numbers of people who have this attitude. Really…and where are these would be Hitlers?

You also make the same mistake of equating insurance with healthcare. You can have insurance and not get care or you can be without and get care. Insurance is not a guaranty of anything. Just look at your insurance policy…much language about not promising much of anything .

You obviously didn’t read my post regarding people who use emergency rooms for medical care. I assure you the vast majority of them are NOT there for emergencies. They know they cannot be turned away so the waiting room is filled with non-emergent cases…everything from colds to ingrown toenails. Oh and we MUST provide interpretation for them as well as medical care.

But all those greedy doctors and evil hospital administrators still manage to find it in their black hearts to take care of these folks…

One more time: People are not dying in the streets because of a lack of health insurance.

Lisa

 

[seekerz]

a) I told you the Doc Fix was postponed year after year. That isn’t the point

Why isn’t it the point? We have been talking reimbursement no? Rather than simply making broad generalizations about it rising or falling, let’s look at what is has actually done, when and why.

b) Premiums have already begun to rise in ANTICIPATION of Obamacare

Excuse me? You mean they were static at some point? And what of out-of-pocket costs, which most directly impact patients?

c) Really you go to Blue Cross for a pap smear?

Do you pay your insurance premiums at the doctor’s office?

The ‘free’ in preventive care refers to what is owed by the patient, not to whether or not the doctor gets paid by the insurance company.

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.

That is your interpretation. You are the one describing the entry and exit of these professionals simply in terms of expected reimbursement. I know it is far more complicated than that.

I really think your attitude colors your view of this issue.

I could return the compliment. I’m not the one who’s been making assertions about doctors and medicine, almost completely in dollars and cents for the last several pages. Government will pay doctors less - doctors will reject government’s rates - doctors will leave profession - doctors will not enter profession - people will suffer if government doesn’t offer doctors more money. I think that’s kind of how it’s gone, this argument of yours…

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.

I show appreciation where appreciation is due. Health care is not just another market. I personally find the idea sort of offensive, but that is the language in which you chose to couch it. Now, after how many posts (?) you have come to the point of mentioning doctor’s dedication!? And you seek to berate me?

Medicine is not simply a commodity and health care is not just another market. How you framed the conversation is the real problem.

 

[iamrefreshed]

You forgot to address the ‘what do they cover part’. Unless I am mistaken, the plan that you link to does not cover outpatient doctor visits. So how does this help people who can’t afford to see a doctor?

Who can’t afford a doctors visit?

The idea of a co-pay of $20 is what ails the healthcare industry. Doctor’s recommending test after test, sometimes repeatedly, because ‘it’s covered’ is what ails the healthcare industry.

Proponents of Obamacare love to talk about people dying of cancer because they can’t afford treatments. Catastrophic healthcare covers that.

 

[seekerz]

One more time: People are not dying in the streets because of a lack of health insurance.

Lisa

I never said they were. Read what you see, not what you want to see.

 

[seekerz]

Who can’t afford a doctors visit?

Right now, a whole lot of low-income people. Do you know any?

 

[scipio337]

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.

Now a heckler at a debate is in a significant position of leadership in the party?

 

[seekerz]

Proponents of Obamacare love to talk about people dying of cancer because they can’t afford treatments. Catastrophic healthcare covers that.

I’ll do you one better: for many people, preventive care PREVENTS that.

 

[seekerz]

Now a heckler at a debate is in a significant position of leadership in the party?

Where did you get that idea from? Not my written-in-plain-English post, surely?

 

[scipio337]

Where did you get that idea from? Not my written-in-plain-English post, surely?

I apologize. A heckler’s misinterpretation of a candidate who rarely received more than 10% of a primary vote is in significant position of leadership in the party?

Perhaps what your written-in-plain-English post could have provided was factual data, rather than hyperbole.

Like the fact that EMTALA has been in force for over two decades, that charity hospitals have operated for well over a century in this country, and that people aren’t left to die because they have no insurance.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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.

The 2700 page law has already spun off 33,000 pages of rules and regulations from the HHS secretary, and it is not even fully implemented yet. Apparently the specifics of how and when the cost control measures are implemented are based on the broad discretionary powers of Sebellius, who is well known as a bastion of religious freedom and a staunch defender of human life and dignity.

 

[LisaA]

I apologize. A heckler’s misinterpretation of a candidate who rarely received more than 10% of a primary vote is in significant position of leadership in the party?

Perhaps what your written-in-plain-English post could have provided was factual data, rather than hyperbole.

Like the fact that EMTALA has been in force for over two decades, that charity hospitals have operated for well over a century in this country, and that people aren’t left to die because they have no insurance.

Thank you! Maybe your post will get through.
Lisa

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ll do you one better: for many people, preventive care PREVENTS that.

Well if you can prevent cancer maybe you should go into practice.

Let’s not forget, our government, since passing ObamaCare, has decided prostate and breast cancer screenings are unnecessary.

 

[seekerz]

I apologize. A heckler’s misinterpretation of a candidate who rarely received more than 10% of a primary vote is in significant position of leadership in the party?

Perhaps what your written-in-plain-English post could have provided was factual data, rather than hyperbole.

Like the fact that EMTALA has been in force for over two decades, that charity hospitals have operated for well over a century in this country, and that people aren’t left to die because they have no insurance.

Apology accepted.

That lone heckler’s comment stirred much controversy - again, I await the firm rebuttal (you know, like McCain with that confused Grandma and her question on Obama’s heritage).

Again, to be clear, my claim was NOT who is or is not dying of what, but the acceptance that they should be suffering and dying. As I already admitted, I cannot give any numbers (which is why I am not making claims as to their proportion).

All I have is my commonsense: before a person qualifies for emergency treatment (unless they were perhaps hit by a car or a bolt of lightning) they generally tend to be suffering from some sort of disease which gives rise to the emergency in the first place. Ergo, people who don’t have access to health care on a non-emergency basis, can suffer for years or even die, from diseases that they might not even be aware they have.

 

[SamH]

I Perhaps what your written-in-plain-English post could have provided was factual data, rather than hyperbole.

Take away the hyperbole and there is no post.

 

[seekerz]

Well if you can prevent cancer maybe you should go into practice.

Let’s not forget, our government, since passing ObamaCare, has decided prostate and breast cancer screenings are unnecessary.

Lots of different cancers are completely preventable. And for accuracy sake, NOBODY decided that prostate and breast cancer screenings are unnecessary. That is just not true.

After a decade or two of scientists fighting over the issue, it was decided that a blood test used for prostate screening causes more hurt than it helps. Nothing prevents a doctor from examining your prostate if he feels inclined to.

Breast cancer screenings have not been ruled ‘unnecessary’ either. The recommendations of who and when to test have simply been changed - that is all.

These types of changes in medical advice and practice happen all the time, with or without the ACA. Seriously, I think even grandmas have begun rolling their eyes when they hear the bogeyman’s out to get them…

 

[iamrefreshed]

Right now, a whole lot of low-income people. Do you know any?

I bet they’ve managed to afford a cell phone, cable TV, Internet, X-Box and a host of other ‘necessities’.

 

[SamH]

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”

But Obamatax will result in people with insurance suffering and dying without medical care.

 

[seekerz]

Take away the hyperbole and there is no post.

Astute and widely applicable observation. Must be rubbing off on me, this surfeit of hyperbole.