Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Keith_W_OR_USA]

You can’t even see the irony of your position. Most people are broke because they have no clue about how to properly manage money and prioritize their budget. Poverty is not a money problem, it is a thinking problem. ANd in this case, thinking that they deserve an Escalade because they were able to find a way to get section 8 housing and food stamps.

I’m sure a poor mother with a 1 yr old child will just have to think positive that money will rain down from heaven. Pathetic

 

[_Abyssinia]

The tax man cometh to police you on health care

miamiherald.com/2012/07/07/v-fullstory/2885793/the-tax-man-cometh-to-police-you.html

Liberals, why are you celebrating Obamacare?

Liberals are celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Obamacare. This raises a question: Why, exactly, are they celebrating? Obamacare is far from the liberal ideal. In fact, many of its provisions fly in the face of what liberals say they stand for. The law promotes cronyism, hurts the poor, limits care for the elderly, fails to reach the left’s pet goal of universal coverage, wrecks havoc on government transparency, and raises taxes on the middle class

Remember Occupy Wall Street? Rowdy groups of young liberals gathered to “occupy” various cities in protest of the Wall Street bailouts and a political system in which the government and big corporations conspire to make rich people richer and poor people poorer. This wheeling and dealing cronyism is at the heart of the health law

dailycaller.com/2012/07/06/liberals-why-are-you-celebrating-obamacare

 

[_Abyssinia]

All politicians compromise in order to get legislation passed, otherwise we get a bunch of people getting paid for doing nothing. The fact remains that Obama adopted a plan that was essentially Romney’s - how do you get more bipartisan than that?

Compromise is not having a legislature override your wishes

RomneyCare had bipartisan support, ObamaTax did not. I think if ObamaTax had been labeled as tax it would of not of passed congress because I do not think Democrats would of voted for a massive tax increase

There are major differences between the two

BTW I do now why you keep talking about RomneyCare, RomneyCare is not a part of this election, it a a state plan of which Romney has said is not for a federal level. Romney has his own plans for health care reform

 

[seekerz]

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.

Stingy is a matter of opinion, as doctors in various fields will tell you. Personally, I’m in favor of a system where doctors are indeed guaranteed a particular income and don’t feel pressured to maintain high volume of services in order to achieve it. But I*'m arguing that from a free market perspective* there can’t really be a guarantee of a particular income level. There is not such thing as too stingy (or too costly), the market is the final arbiter of what ‘should’ be.

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.

If the ‘market’ cannot support six-figure incomes for doctors then what would you do, exclude health care from the free market system? Just asking…

 

[seekerz]

Compromise is not having a legislature override your wishes

RomneyCare had bipartisan support, ObamaTax did not. I think if ObamaTax had been labeled as tax it would of not of passed congress because I do not think Democrats would of voted for a massive tax increase

There are major differences between the two

You are right RomneyCare had bipartisan support because it was good legislation even if it is not perfect. It may yet regain that bipartisan support if Romney wins. Hey, one can always hope…

 

[catholictiger]

to the poll the court effectively changed the law I don’t think they should have the power to do that. Only say the law as written is constitutional, or the law as written is unconstitutional (which they said).

 

[sharmin]

You can get comprehensive health care, free or low cost depending on your income at more than 1250 community health centres with more than 8000 sites

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

 

[ProVobis]

That’s interesting, but people without insurance also get care. Now, they generally can’t pay for it, but they still get care.

Someone has to pay for it; otherwise the hospital closes its doors to everyone.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Thats one of the major problems… there just won’t be as many doctors. Also the QUALITY of care will go down. If I was a doctor… i’d find another business to get into… quick.

Your not a Doctor. Yet you make such a bold declaration?

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I do not where you get the idea from that RomneyCare is the right’s solution for health care, when few conservatives support it. The RomneyCare written into law, and the RomneyCare today is not the original idea that Romney had

RomneyCare Romney originally wanted had no forced individual mandate, but an opt out such as a bond so individuals could show they had enough money to pay health care bills. Democrat legislature rejected it

Romney opposed the employer mandate and vetoed it. Democrat legislature overrode

Romney vetoed medicaid expansion for children because of cost constraints, that was added by the Democrat legislature but was overridden

Romney vetoed cover for legal immigrants that were not poor called ‘special status aliens’ but was overridden

Romney opposed Minimum Coverage Options, instead wanting ‘higher deductible’ that would cover catastrophic ill health and hospitalisation. Rejected by the Democrat legislature. ‘We wanted no mandated benefits,’ said Romney said in an interview. Democrat legislate instead mandated ‘gold plated insurance plans’ ben fit rich insurance plans

Romney vetoed coverage of optical and dental care for Medicaid participants because of cost. Was overridden by the Democrat legislature

Romney wanted costs to be controlled so he wanted everyone to pay some part of their premium for health insurance. Law as it is now gives it free

Romney would of liked tax break for those who have health insurance rather than tax penalty for those without health insurance. Either would of provided incentive to become insured

Romney supported a plan to allow employees to use their employers funds to buy health insurance on the open market. An employee would not then be trapped with their employers health insurance plan.

Romney supported ways to encourage individuals to go to doctor first, like raising co payment charge on ER visits, before going to the emergency room which many go to with things can be simply treated, and ER costs more

Romney supported patients providing documents to insurance companies before being insured because there have been claims of people not signing up for coverage until tax was due or they were ill

Next governor after Romney, Governor Patrick, added a costly prescription drug benefit and set Massachusetts amount of premiums above what Romney thought was reasonable so now those who receive subsidies for health insurance rely on government to pay a larger amount of their premiums

Democrat legislature made RomneyCare bigger, less competitive, more government driven, more expensive. Not what Romney wanted

This is how law is made. When you start the ball rolling, you lose a certain amount of control. Health care has gotten very expensive. So, managing it is going to be quite an undertaking. We’ll be fine. You’ll see.

 

[ProVobis]

Other than the fact that many doctors are already leaving their practices, resulting in less choice and a shortage of doctors, Catholics could still opt out of this government “health” plan…There are Christian medical share plans which are not insurance but do result in your bills being paid, as you also pay others’ medical bills. Catholics could and should form such associations so that we are not inadvertently paying for someone’s abortions and ABC.

However, since I have not read the entire bill, it is also possible that these associations are going to be illegal.

I doubt it. Medi-Share, which is offered for Christians only, was one of those plans which were exempted from the mandate to cover the full costs of abortions and birth control.

 

[RobbyS]

Then the hospitals shouldn’t be forced to provide treatment either. Currently there’s an imbalance.

More likely than not, it is a state government that requires hospitals to take everyone. The states and the Federal Government have different taxing power. The states have the police power; the Federal Government does not, or at least, based on the Constitution, did not. A state had a unitary government, which means it has “sovereign” powers, which is to say the powers of a principle/monarch. In s republic, in the absence of a prince, the people of the state retain those powers. That means the taxing power is plenary. The Taxing power of the Federal government is different. It is specific, it is limited.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

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

Sooooo…you want free care and you want it delivered? Would you like a large fry to go with that?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is how law is made. When you start the ball rolling, you lose a certain amount of control. Health care has gotten very expensive. So, managing it is going to be quite an undertaking. We’ll be fine. You’ll see.

Okay! We’ll just take it on faith that the government will be able to get out of its own way and control the cost of care…like they do so well with everything else they manage.

Ya, not buying it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Lots of doctors are already getting out, retiring, this has pushed them over the edge. What will fill the gap? Look for more PA’s and nursing assistants to treat you. Whoopee.

One other possibility is a black market in medical services.

The black market = the true free market.

 

[Jeffrey]

Sure do… doctors will have thier salary capped. I’d quit too. There will be less doctors. Therefore the quality of care will go down.

Your not a Doctor. Yet you make such a bold declaration?

ATB

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m changing topics? … What topic did I change?

Here’s the chronology:

Grab the next uninsured person you encounter and ask them if they get follow-up, non-emergency tests or medications from the ER. No they don’t. Health care involves all of the above.

If you define care by the lowest common denominator - then sure, EVERYBODY gets care. If you define care by basic medical care (not cadillac care) and ongoing treatment (including medication) for non-emergency conditions, then my assertion remains true, many uninsured and under-insured people are going without care.

TO WHICH I RESPONDED:

At what point, seekerz, are residents of the freest and arguably the most generous country on earth required to take some reciprocal adult responsibility for all this follow-up that you keep insisting is “due” them, beyond the “LCD?” …We reap what we sow.

I recently …began a short-term Extreme Frugality project (about 3 weeks’ worth). I didn’t believe it would amount to much, and deliberately didn’t keep checking my bank account. To my shock I saved $600 just by doing without what was not absolutely essential. …My point is not to force everybody into extremities; my point is that adults taking responsibility for themselves is more reachable than many here, and the government, give people credit for…
Maybe after one year of people taking initiative for medical follow-up, then their premiums – or their medicaid insurance – could be further discounted, and maintained there unless they started behaving irresponsibly again. But assuming at the outset that we must never treat lazy people like adults (whatever their income level), and poor people like adults, is not a prescription for “change.”

Nothing in there about $200,000 hospital bills, but about the routine & preventative & chronic care you keep focusing on:

BUT YOUR DIRECT REPLY WAS:

Extreme Frugality is everyday life for me - I turn up my nose at your average grocery store coupon dispensed at cash registers because for the most part, discounted or not, I see those products as beyond my budget. Yet that frugality could not begin to allow me to help a dear one pay the $200,000+ bill that her uninsured care incurred - not without bankrupting me…

So in fact you do change the subject, and regularly, and not just in reply to me, but in reply to other posters.

Here’s the bottom line, as I see your position:
~Most people (or a large percentage of people) are irresponsible about their health, and/or “cannot afford” to be responsible about preventative & follow-up care. (It remains debatable, I maintain, what is truly not affordable and what many people view as optional.)
~Because of large segments of irresponsible people in the population, government must be the adult, which means that the rest of the country are deputized as adults of these irresponsible patients, and “must” pay for the routine health care of others, so that supposedly ER’s won’t be overused.
But here, i.m.o., is the most objectionable part of your position, which is built into virtually all of your replies on healthcare in Social Justice and in World News:

~ We are required to accept the entire current structure of U.S. healthcare. Whether any element of it can change (which seems, judging from your posts, to be unlikely), it also seems to be your viewpoint that nothing should change. We should keep all these bulky and dysfunctional interrelationships within the current healthcare “system.” And therefore, every single constructive or creative suggestion anyone proposes is one which (because it doesn’t “fit in” with current dynamics (of course it doesn’t: that’s the point!) cannot or should not be considered.

When people suggest a non-insurance type of solution (with regard to any phase or function of medicine), you revert to the importance of insurance.
When people (such as I) resurrect the previous option in medical insurance, which was stand-alone hospital/catastrophic, you reply that insurance companies “must” only offer combined insurance. (Actually, they “must” do both only because they prefer to do both, and that preference is based on profit, and that profit is based on the shrinkage of insurance pools.) My point is that universal hospital insurance, mandated of insurance companies by the gov’t, would reduce that cost because it would radically expand the pool, and make it possible for insurance companies to thrive while not jeopardizing lives or coverage.

There are times when I swear you work for a medical insurance company. That’s how much an advocate of the status quo you seem to be.

Other ways are possible. Other solutions are possible. It doesn’t “have” to be same old, same old. But you continue to resist any change from the usual, as I read all of your posts.

You, …choose to break health care coverage into hospital and non-hospital. That might be how you would like it to be, but for people on comprehensive plans (which is most of the insured I know of) that is not their reality.

It can be made their reality.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

 

[onenow1]

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

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Okay! We’ll just take it on faith that the government will be able to get out of its own way and control the cost of care…like they do so well with everything else they manage.

Ya, not buying it.

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