Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2289519/

Topic: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-13 13:37:00 and read 2851 times.

A U.S. district Judge has struck down the "mandate" portion of the Health Care law. It will surely be appealed.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...quirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, today said that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce. While severing the coverage mandate, which is set to become effective in 2014, Hudson didn’t address other provisions such as expanding Medicaid.

“At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance -- or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage -- it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate,” wrote Hudson, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002.


This can't get to the Supreme Court fast enough IMO.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-13 13:44:51 and read 2842 times.

Quoting dxing (Thread starter):
This can't get to the Supreme Court fast enough IMO.

All of these suits need to be fast tracked.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 13:48:25 and read 2837 times.

The fun thing about this is whichever side doesn't prevail will be crying judicial activism all over again.  

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Lufthansa411
Posted 2010-12-13 14:00:57 and read 2826 times.

I wouldn't say the first round went to the states considering that of the three decisions that are in, 2 have been won by the government and now 1 has been lost. It will be interesting to see where this heads for sure.

Plus, the healthcare law will not be repealed, by the nature of how it was passed it would be nearly impossible to do. However, it is entirely possible to have certain sections shot down, as was the case in VA today. Only the mandate was found unconstitutional, not the healthcare law as a whole.

The dems were smart the way they passed this: in many parts, not as a giant whole and with a longer timeline. This means that only parts of the law can be challenged and by the time in gets to the Supreme Court in a couple of years most of the law will already be implemented and almost impossible to turn around.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-13 14:10:09 and read 2811 times.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 3):
2 have been won by the government and now 1 has been lost. It will be interesting to see where this heads for sure.

That's the thing. In order for this law to work the mandate almost has to survive. The States don't need to win every time, just once at the Supreme Court level and the financing for the law is thrown into complete chaos.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 3):
Only the mandate was found unconstitutional, not the healthcare law as a whole.

Never said the entire law was. Again, the States only needed to win once. Now the federal government is forced to appeal the decision.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-13 14:10:57 and read 2810 times.

I suggest title of this topic should be changed to "Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To The People".

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: casinterest
Posted 2010-12-13 14:12:33 and read 2809 times.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 3):
Only the mandate was found unconstitutional, not the healthcare law as a whole.

The law itself rested on a plan of bringing patient affordability by forcing everyone to have insurance. If everyone is not required to have insurance, the plan gets expensive for the Government and further increases the deficit, and individual insurance plans. If this mandate is upheld, obamacare will need to be repealed, or the democrats will be completely destroyed in 2012 and 2014.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: tugger
Posted 2010-12-13 14:56:11 and read 2783 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 4):
That's the thing. In order for this law to work the mandate almost has to survive. The States don't need to win every time, just once at the Supreme Court level and the financing for the law is thrown into complete chaos.

Nah, it's simple really and I wish they would have done this in the first place, but all you have to do is change it from a "require to purchase" to a tax deduction. Basically establish a "medical support tax" something on the order of $7,000.00 (or $10k, $14K whatever the estimated cost is) per person and have a matching $7k deduction for providing your own. You could have exclusions and exemptions that leave the fiscal result as the same as it is now. It's simple and if the tax and deduction are crafted properly everyone will get their own insurance.

Simple.

As a fiscal conservative Republican I think that everyone MUST have health insurance/contribute toward universal access for all. And I also fully see the "wrong" in congress making it a "you must buy" requirement. That power is not granted to the congress. They overstepped their limits. Of course we will likely have to wait another two years at least with the structure of the incoming congress before this is able to be instituted. But it will happen, I do see universal access to health care coming to the USA.

Tugg

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 14:57:07 and read 2783 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):

I suggest title of this topic should be changed to "Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To The People".

Utter nonsense. Given that the current system involves those of us who are insured double-paying for those who aren't through both premium increases and local taxes, this has nothing to do with "the people". The problems with the law relate to interstate commerce and the total lack of any action taken against frivolous malpractice suits.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2010-12-13 15:14:25 and read 2765 times.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 6):
The law itself rested on a plan of bringing patient affordability by forcing everyone to have insurance.

That's not why the requirement to have insurance was included in the law. The legislation requires insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, the insurance industry would be swimming in red ink if people could stay uninsured, then apply for and be guaranteed insurance only when they suffer an expensive injury or illness. The requirement to have insurance was to prevent people from doing just that.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-13 15:58:22 and read 2743 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 4):
Again, the States only needed to win once.

No, the states* only have to win the Superbowl. This wasn't even a playoff game.

* Most states are not interested in breaking apart this law. This case was brought by our activist AG Cuccinelli, and does not enjoy wide support by the rest of the Commonwealth. Let's not get carried away.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-13 16:23:34 and read 2727 times.

I've always felt that the mandate to purchase insurance was very wrong.

After all this would be first and only time in America that the government require every man, woman and child to go out and spend money by something, namely purchasing insurance from a private business. Nuts.

If you want to take part fine, but people(and States) should have the right to opt out.

At the end of the day hopefully enough holes are made in Obamacare that it becomes a meaningless law. Also with Republicans having the House, they hopefully will refuse to pass any funding bills the next two years that sends money towards program.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-13 16:41:07 and read 2717 times.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 9):

That's not why the requirement to have insurance was included in the law. The legislation requires insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Obviously, the insurance industry would be swimming in red ink if people could stay uninsured, then apply for and be guaranteed insurance only when they suffer an expensive injury or illness. The requirement to have insurance was to prevent people from doing just that.

That and also the hospitals. Hospitals are required to stabilize patients regardless of ability to pay. The problem is that very often (and I mean very often) that stabilization is no small feat.

So now you have a patient who has received a good fraction of a million dollars worth of healthcare. Oh, the hospital can go after him with collections until they've collected his testicles, but that still doesn't get them their money.

The other thing is that forcing everyone to have insurance ensures that everyone has access to primary care and preventative care. That poor uninsured schmuck who had a stroke that took out half his brain now has no way to pay for long-term care, true, but if he'd had insurance he might not have had the stroke because his 190/120 blood pressure would have been properly controlled!

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: photopilot
Posted 2010-12-13 16:47:20 and read 2712 times.

And the World continues to laugh at the world's biggest economy and country that somehow can't even manage to have Universal Health Care for all it's citizens. Astounding really......that healthcare isn't a universal right in the USA and that petty politics and bickering takes presidence.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: IMissPiedmont
Posted 2010-12-13 16:55:48 and read 2705 times.

I find it a pity that my insurance company was allowed to double my premium, I now have crappy (read as useless) health insurance.

Obama, I'm sure, will again drop everything else and focus his one track mind on a problem that he is unwilling to really fix. Very sad.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-13 16:58:41 and read 2703 times.

[

Quoting photopilot (Reply 13):
And the World continues to laugh at the world's biggest economy and country that somehow can't even manage to have Universal Health Care for all it's citizens. Astounding really......that healthcare isn't a universal right in the USA and that petty politics and bickering takes presidence.


Why do you think we have the "world's biggest economy"?

Because we have resisted (up til now) the "cradle to grave coddling" that the rest of the worlds industrialized nations are now trying to get out from under.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: okie
Posted 2010-12-13 16:58:55 and read 2703 times.

"Despite the laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive and transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds. Salutatory [sic] goals and creative drafting have never been sufficient to offset an absence of enumerated powers."

This is the heart of the decision, Congress has overstepped their contitutional bounds.

The government can not dictate that you to buy a pile of General Electric rubber dog poo, a bus, a GM car, or health insurance even with creative drafting.

Okie

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: san747
Posted 2010-12-13 17:08:51 and read 2691 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):

After all this would be first and only time in America that the government require every man, woman and child to go out and spend money by something, namely purchasing insurance from a private business. Nuts.

Probably because the government understands that when an uninsured citizen uses health services without the ability to pay, the rest of us have to. Every argument I hear against illegal immigration centers on Americans having to pay for them using our hospital services (among others), but I never hear any mention of the fact that we pay just as much, if not more for uninsured Americans using hospitals. Mandating every citizen own health insurance rectifies that situation by making sure that citizen has the ability to pay for their OWN treatment and the hospital that provides them services doesn't get screwed out of (often) hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to treat them, as Doc described.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 17:25:41 and read 2676 times.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 13):
And the World continues to laugh at the world's biggest economy and country that somehow can't even manage to have Universal Health Care for all it's citizens.

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
The other thing is that forcing everyone to have insurance ensures that everyone has access to primary care and preventative care. That poor uninsured schmuck who had a stroke that took out half his brain now has no way to pay for long-term care, true, but if he'd had insurance he might not have had the stroke because his 190/120 blood pressure would have been properly controlled!

Yes yes yes. People against health care for all just don't seem to grasp the reality of double-paying for others. I don't like doing it - question is why do they??

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 14):
Obama, I'm sure, will again drop everything else and focus his one track mind on a problem that he is unwilling to really fix.

Yes, since his party and the other are in bed with competing interests, there is no objective view to solve the problem of malpractice abuse and prescription fraud.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Why do you think we have the "world's biggest economy"?

I don't give a fig about that if I still have to pay for other people's care two or three times like we do with the current system. Please tell me why you enjoy having to do that.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-13 18:34:12 and read 2657 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
Please tell me why you enjoy having to do that.


I don't enjoy it, I pay $811 a month for health insurance for my wife and myself. I do it because if, God forbid, we do need it we have it. My insurance would be a lot less if I didn't have to pay for "government mandated" things like, covering children up to 26 on their parents policy, mental health care, drug rehab, stop smoking classes, pre-natial care and delivery (my wife had a hysterectomy 30 years ago) and dozens of other feel good items politicians require insurance companies to cover because they were looking for votes from one bleeding heart group or another.

But I can't shop around and get just the coverage I want, a simple insurance policy that will pay if I am admitted to a hospital or have a catastrophic illness and let me cover my doctors visits. That would be real "health care reform".

But Obama care does nothing to lower costs only add more mandates.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-13 18:46:27 and read 2648 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
But Obama care does nothing to lower costs only add more mandates.

False, unless you can cite a source to back you up.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-13 18:53:30 and read 2643 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):

False, unless you can cite a source to back you up.


All you have to do is do something the Democrats in Congress refused to, "read the bill'.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-13 18:53:56 and read 2643 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
I didn't have to pay for "government mandated" things like, covering children up to 26 on their parents policy

Is that not part of the new bill? It was always 21for college students, before the Healthcare bill, unless I am mistaken. It was 18, unless you went to college in my company coverage.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-13 18:54:34 and read 2646 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
Most states are not interested in breaking apart this law.

From the story in the OP:

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out.

That's 22 States and with the recent election results there are several other States that are set to join the suit or start their own. Not a majority today, but a month from now that will most likely be a different story.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 12):
So now you have a patient who has received a good fraction of a million dollars worth of healthcare.

We've discussed this before. Exactly how many times does that happen in a year at one hospital? Not many if I remember correctly. Again, the outlandish is portrayed as the norm. It seems to be the only way some can advance their argument.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):

Yes yes yes. People against health care for all just don't seem to grasp the reality of double-paying for others. I don't like doing it - question is why do they??

People double pay all the time. I have uninsured motorist coverage on my auto insurance policy. If my daughters attended private school as many children do, I'd be paying double as their parents do. My taxes go to support those on welfare and medicaid so in effect I pay for my own health insurance as well as indigents. Those (medicaid payments) are only set to grow with the advent of Obama Care in 2014 and is one of the main reasons that the mandate to buy has to remain. Without it those expanded medicaid roles will have their finances thrown into turmoil.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-13 19:07:48 and read 2624 times.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 22):

Not my quote.

Quoting dxing (Reply 23):
That's 22 States

Which is not most.

Quoting dxing (Reply 23):
but a month from now that will most likely be a different story.

Yeah... your argument is reduced to a prediction into the future? That's not like you.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: nonrevman
Posted 2010-12-13 19:08:51 and read 2656 times.

Quoting Lufthansa411 (Reply 3):
Plus, the healthcare law will not be repealed, by the nature of how it was passed it would be nearly impossible to do. However, it is entirely possible to have certain sections shot down, as was the case in VA today. Only the mandate was found unconstitutional, not the healthcare law as a whole.

I am not crazy about the healthcare bill, but the mandate is the one thing I am direly opposed to when it comes to the issue. Currently, my family of four does have health insurance. Yet, we are like most average Americans, where a job loss from either me or my wife would render health care unaffordable for all of us. I could see keeping the kids insured and having to drop my insurance just so we could put food on the table, a roof over our heads, and clothes on our backs. If the government mandated that I buy the insurance, I would either have to sacrifice one of the above or pay a fine. This is what gets me about the whole plan. If someone cannot afford to buy the insurance, how are they going to be able to afford the fine? Unfortunately, the bill does not cap the cost of health insurance. Already, rates are going up. My wife works at the hospital, so I know exactly what we are dealing with. Besides the mandate being an attack on the Constitution, it also puts the middle class in danger by forcing them to buy something that may not be affordable. Look closely at the Constitution, it says that the Federal Government can regulate commerce. Please not that "regulate commerce" does not equate to forcing it to happen. Not buying something is simply not the same thing as commerce.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-13 19:37:17 and read 2647 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
All you have to do is do something the Democrats in Congress refused to, "read the bill'.

Please cite the portion of the bill that supports your claim.

Or admit to being wrong.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 25):
Already, rates are going up.

Rates were going up before the health care bill for reasons entirely unrelated to the health care bill, but partially remedied by the health care bill.



Soooo much misinformation out there crowding out the truth.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-13 19:45:56 and read 2655 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 22):


Not my quote

It was 474218. These damn computers.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-13 20:08:20 and read 2650 times.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 27):
It was 474218. These damn computers.


Don't blame me, my hands were no where near your keyboard!

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-13 20:17:11 and read 2641 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 28):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 27):
It was 474218. These damn computers.


Don't blame me, my hands were no where near your keyboard!

No question, I could never make a living with a computer.  

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 20:20:10 and read 2642 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
My insurance would be a lot less if I didn't have to pay for "government mandated" things like, covering children up to 26 on their parents policy, mental health care, drug rehab, stop smoking classes, pre-natial care and delivery (my wife had a hysterectomy 30 years ago) and dozens of other feel good items politicians require insurance companies to cover because they were looking for votes from one bleeding heart group or another.

You just don't get it - everyone's insurance will be lower down the line if more people have preventative care. Insurance companies don't really care about the new law - it's more customers for them.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
But Obama care does nothing to lower costs only add more mandates.

Patently false. You need a non-partisan fact check:

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-tru...h-about-health-insurance-premiums/

But don't get me wrong - I fault Obama for caving to liberal concerns and trial lawyers and not going after a real cost driver: malpractice premiums driven by absurd lawsuits that forget doctors are human like the rest of us.

Quoting dxing (Reply 23):
People double pay all the time. I have uninsured motorist coverage on my auto insurance policy

Not applicable. People have the option not to drive or own an automobile. Not so with one's health.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: 474218
Posted 2010-12-13 20:21:15 and read 2644 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Please cite the portion of the bill that supports your claim.

Or admit to being wrong.


Just wait, there are still two years before the bill goes in to effect. That is unless it is found "un-constitutional, which it should be!

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 20:30:14 and read 2636 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 31):
Just wait, there are still two years before the bill goes in to effect. That is unless it is found "un-constitutional, which it should be!

Classic avoidance of the facts. That's the default go-to mode when all you have in your head are talking points. People tied to whatever rhetoric their favorite party is spewing operate in this mode all the time - it's no wonder the country has lost its grip on reality.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-13 21:32:17 and read 2622 times.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 31):
Just wait, there are still two years before the bill goes in to effect. That is unless it is found "un-constitutional, which it should be!

It should be, your view, maybe it is not, what then? Should it still be killed, or modified over time to help your fellow citizens, and maybe your friends and family? Are not the legal citizens of the US deserving of healthcare, or should it be available only to certain folks who can afford it. That is a growing problem here now, less and less being able to afford it. Not quite fair to me. Maybe we need more jobs back here, not there.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-13 22:03:59 and read 2611 times.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 25):
Unfortunately, the bill does not cap the cost of health insurance. Already, rates are going up.

   Yeah funny, I got some documents in the mail a few weeks back describing changes to our health coverage come 2011, and the rate chart guide and letter went to stress in a couple places that the 18% increase was very much due to;

"On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that made certain changes to your existing health plan"

Then is goes on to list that for instance, they can no longer offer rates based on age bands(eg 40-46 grouped as one rate), they can no longer differentiate between genders in rate structure, plus "various other changes to your benefit plan design with increased cost associated with the administration and delivery of health care." Nice ha?

Thanks Mr. Obama for that "Affordable" work of yours.   

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 22:26:06 and read 2601 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
Then is goes on to list that for instance, they can no longer offer rates based on age bands(eg 40-46 grouped as one rate), they can no longer differentiate between genders in rate structure, plus "various other changes to your benefit plan design with increased cost associated with the administration and delivery of health care."

Differentiating between genders is ridiculous - women are more susceptible to certain degenerative diseases than men and vice versa. Why should women pay more because they are susceptible to osteoporosis and breast cancer or men because they have 4x the risk for cardiovascular disease than women? It all balances out in the end.

Administrative costs due to change are temporary - once everyone is used to the system the benefits will be clear - why do you think these proposals enjoyed better than 70% approval from physicians?

Read the fact check documents previously posted.

Unbelievable btw that you would check mark a post calling for capping of premiums.

All of the opposition to this plan based on ideology is just that - opposition based on emotion, not facts. Likewise it's true that liberals calling for single payer were guilty of same. But the bottom line is - having everyone insured is best for all of us long term. There are still more kinks to work out for sure - I doubt if DC will ever get rid of the lobbying influence that prevents them from doing something about malpractice and prescription abuses, but we can only hope.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
Thanks Mr. Obama for that "Affordable" work of yours.

More people insured is more affordable for everyone long term. Short term all of the estimates, including the figures accepted by the CBO and AMA, projected increases for those with existing insurance.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-13 22:55:54 and read 2598 times.

I just finished reading the VA decision and its rather crafty. Judge Hudson's decision does not attack the purchase mandate up front, but takes the view that there is no law or precedence whereby a person inaction, lack of desire to participate in and or benefit from, and refusal to enter into the "stream of commerce" by not purchasing a commodity in the private market is punishable.

At the end of the day, by stripping way such individual or business penalty provisions, individuals are again able to take control and responsibility for their own futures.
Hopefully decisions like this can help unravel the Obamacare nightmare.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 35):
Why should women pay more because they are susceptible to osteoporosis and breast cancer or men because they have 4x the risk for cardiovascular disease than women?

Because that is insurance 101. Each party should have the commensurate risk assigned to it. Happens in auto instance, home instance, life insurance etc.. If women cost more in one area, or men in another let the risk and cost appropriately reflect such.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 23:05:30 and read 2598 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
Because that is insurance 101. Each party should have the commensurate risk assigned to it. Happens in auto instance, home instance, life insurance etc.. If women cost more in one area, or men in another let the risk and cost appropriately reflect such.

Health is a completely different thing - we're all going to die, that's a given. There is no opt out for dying - it's just a matter of how much pain and suffering leads up to it, particularly in the form of disease. Comparing to other types of insurance is garbage intellectual dishonesty - anybody can choose not to have a car, or a house, or to leave money to others should they die early. There is no way to opt out of health care because 99 out of 100 people with a serious injury or ailment will seek care for it. Life insurance is an optional thing and therefore the actuarial tables apply - for regular health care they should not.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
Hopefully decisions like this can help unravel the Obamacare nightmare.

Arguing totally on emotion by making this about the man or the people behind it. It's not perfect but it's a start - every attempt at Everest requires a base camp. Not going to bother further for those that wish to proceed on this issue with their heads buried in ideological quicksand. You guys who want to oppose this can go on about it, but I maintain it's idiotic to pay two or three times for everyone else as we do now. It's absurd and everyone sees it but you.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-13 23:08:32 and read 2598 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 23):

We've discussed this before. Exactly how many times does that happen in a year at one hospital? Not many if I remember correctly.

Often enough that in one month I saw five cases in medical school. No end-of-life planning or advance directives, unreasonable families threatening to sue, lawyers buzzing around, patient who wasn't quite brain dead.

A lot. You can deny it, but it happens A LOT.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-13 23:42:07 and read 2581 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37):
Arguing totally on emotion by making this about the man or the people behind it.

Emotion yes absolutely as it effects me and my family.

As I stated in threads in the last year, I have lived under European government managed central social health care and never wish to do so again. Not only is the system a truly rationed one where your health care is decided by bureaucrats and all you are is a number on a waiting list, it also fails to properly take care of those in the system. One family member and acquaintance after another have had to get supplemental private policies to ensure they got the care they desired.

Personally as stated also prior, my opinion of existing health care in America is that its a global leader. I could not be happier with my insurance and providers. I don't need, nor want anyone to get in between that relationship and now to start dictating the terms of how such a relationship shall work going forward.

Now for my political leaning, that also tells me government should not be in the health care business either.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-13 23:48:07 and read 2578 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 39):
I have lived under European government managed central social health care and never wish to do so again. Not only is the system a truly rationed one where your health care is decided by bureaucrats and all you are is a number on a waiting list, it also fails to properly take care of those in the system. One family member and acquaintance after another have had to get supplemental private policies to ensure they got the care they desired.

Nobody is making that happen here - expanding coverage is the name of the game.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 39):
Personally as stated also prior, my opinion of existing health care in America is that its a global leader.

On the side of quality of technique and options for care, probably true. On the side of access, not at all true. That is what needs to be remedied.

Don't let facts get in the way of an emotional argument...

http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/20090914_keyh_f1.jpg

http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/20090914_keyh_t1.jpg

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-14 00:01:58 and read 2578 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 40):
On the side of quality of technique and options for care, probably true. On the side of access, not at all true. That is what needs to be remedied.

Like everything, health care is a commodity and its OK if access is not equal. That is actually the beauty of our existing system imo. You can have the Rolls Royce down to Pinto or no plan. Its pure social reengineering trying to punish the Rolls in order to upgrade the pinto to a Chevy or have everyone on a single standard.

Also as a principle, the government should not be in the business of picking up after every Tom, Dick or Harry. Let them be free worry or decide about themselves.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-14 02:33:31 and read 2550 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 41):
Also as a principle, the government should not be in the business of picking up after every Tom, Dick or Harry. Let them be free worry or decide about themselves.

Mighty convenient for government if they choose not to do so, but those who go to the trouble to get an R.N. or M.D. behind their name have a professional oath to adhere to...and the vast majority take it rather seriously or they wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to enter that line of work. Your disregard for their motivations is telling. Make sure the next time you're in a hospital you stop by the trauma ward and tell the docs your opinion. Would love to see what kind of reaction you'd get.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 41):
Like everything, health care is a commodity and its OK if access is not equal

You claim to be of faith...incredible. There is a baseline amount of access that should be considered acceptable and with ~40 million uninsured and climbing we ain't getting the job done. A basic understanding of commodities reveals that some are indeed very special - enough so that we go to great trouble to ensure people have basic access to them. Health care is one of them.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 41):
Its pure social reengineering trying to punish the Rolls in order to upgrade the pinto to a Chevy or have everyone on a single standard.

Again nobody's doing that - reason #213 you could use a dose of fact checking.

[Edited 2010-12-14 02:34:25]

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: simonriat
Posted 2010-12-14 03:20:21 and read 2542 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 39):
As I stated in threads in the last year, I have lived under European government managed central social health care and never wish to do so again. Not only is the system a truly rationed one where your health care is decided by bureaucrats and all you are is a number on a waiting list, it also fails to properly take care of those in the system. One family member and acquaintance after another have had to get supplemental private policies to ensure they got the care they desired.




I feel I need to respond to this as I have worked for the National Health Service, here in the UK, for several years (Don't anymore due to politics) and my wife still does as a nurse.

Could you please indicate which country you were in.

The NHS is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it does mean that every man, women and child has access to healthcare and is free at the point of delivery, regardless of your ability to pay.

It would appear that under the American system you can only access medical care if you have enough $$$$.

You state that the system is rationed and good job it is too, example actual case:-

A young man went into Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) the other day, referred by his GP for a Septoplasty (basically a surgical procedure which straightens the septum), which was the incorrect procedure for a start as it was the shape of the nose which was a bit wonky not the septum, so the Dr informed the man that he possibly would need a rhinoplasty (a nose job), but when the Dr asked what the person did for a living (he was a soccer player), the Dr informed the patient that it was very inadvisable for him to have the procedure, due to various reasons, and to wait until after he had finished his career.

The above case would have been a complete waste of money, but I am guessing that it would have been done in the states if he had, had the correct medical insurance.

Waiting lists?
I would be interested to learn how it works in the states. (Also considering that My wife and I are seriously considering moving over there)

Again I can give an example. I am waiting for a general surgical procedure as a daycase, I have been waiting 2 years (due to some complications of my own), but before the current government came in we had a system of 18 weeks, whereby nobody would wait more than 18 weeks from referral to first definitive treatment. For certain specialities. Oncology been an exception whereby it was 2 weeks.

Again specific example of how it works. Its called a patient pathway over here. and the example given is a most basic

See your local GP
GP refers to specialist.
Specialist seen in Outpatients
Specialist says if patients needs procedure as inpatient or as a daycase or as above none at all.
Patient goes away and awaits a date for procedure.

NO insurance company involved to see if the patient has coverage, NO waiting to see if the patient has enough money. If the patient is deemed ill enough for the procedure then the patient will have the procedure.

I will defend the NHS to the hilt, yes it does have problems like any healthcare system but it is trying and will continue to improve. The Nhs is not interested in how much money a person has, it tries to look after its population the best it can, regardless of ability to pay.

I think it should be the specialist/ Dr who should say if I need a procedure is required, not my bank balance or my ability to pay.

I'm also guessing that ask any English person what they are most proud of here in the UK (and at the minute we don't have that many), the NHS would be up there.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 03:35:13 and read 2539 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Which is not most.

Which is what I said.

Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Yeah... your argument is reduced to a prediction into the future? That's not like you.

Given the election results at the State level its not that hard of a prediction to make.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 30):
Not applicable. People have the option not to drive or own an automobile. Not so with one's health.

Completely applicable as they have the option to drive a car without insurance even though it is breaking the law, which is why uninsured motorist insurance exists. People have the right to not purchase health insurance if they wish to gamble with their lives, both real and financial. Furthermore, given that a large segment of the population does not pay any taxes at all, and that their health care under this law will be purchased with tax credits, further reducing their already zero tax bill, as well as the raise in the economic level eligible for medicaid, many people will not be "buying" health insurance but rather getting the money for it from people who do have money. In other words the bill is just more wealth redistribution on top of forcing a purchase on someone who may not want it, or want all that the government mandates that they buy.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37):
. Comparing to other types of insurance is garbage intellectual dishonesty -

Insurance is insurance, you are hedging against future loss.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37):
It's not perfect but it's a start

A very bad and costly start.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37):
Arguing totally on emotion

Sounds fine until you say:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37):
You guys who want to oppose this can go on about it, but I maintain it's idiotic to pay two or three times for everyone else as we do now. It's absurd and everyone sees it but you.

Which is by and large a totally emotional response.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
A lot. You can deny it, but it happens A LOT.

During medical school. After those 5 cases in one month how many other cases did you see where the patient had insurance or was able to pay? 5 more? 10 more? How many total cases did the hospital see in that one month alone? 20? 50? 100? What was the ratio of loss in those 5 cases versus the income earned by all the rest seen at the hospital that month? I appreciate you making my point for me, that is that you are using the infrequent and trying to promote it as the norm.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 40):
Don't let facts get in the way of an emotional argument...

True.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/...upport-for-health-care-reform.html

The law’s never been popular, with support peaking at just 48 percent in November 2009. Today it’s slipped to 43 percent, numerically its lowest in ABC/Post polling. (It was about the same, 44 percent, a year ago.) Fifty-two percent are opposed, and that 9-point gap in favor of opposition is its largest on record since the latest debate over health care reform began in earnest in summer 2009.

More also continue to “strongly” oppose the law than to strongly support it, 37 percent to 22 percent.


Those are the people it most directly affects, the taxpayers.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2010-12-14 04:13:07 and read 2526 times.

I am in the view of what many here would call a 'liberal', but I do have issues with the health care insurance purchase mandate despite it's good intentions. I hope that this matter goes to the US Supreme Court and it is revoked as unconstitutional.

While I understand the principals of the mandate, I don't like the potential problems with it. I don't like that the IRS and other government agencies would enforce it including the use of large fines and maybe even jail if you don't cooperate. We all know the price would keep going up far above general inflation rates, taking away money from other spending and personal savings (like for buying a house, a car, retirement) with it's economic dislocations. Many employers would dump their health care insurance plans throwing more onto into the expensive private market. I don't like the idea of paying for insurance to a company with $10 Million an year CEO's, fancy buildings and pays peanuts to customer service staff.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 04:32:32 and read 2527 times.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 43):
NO insurance company involved to see if the patient has coverage,

Since it is national healthcare the government bureaucrats are the involved in the same way as insurance companies are over here. Are you going to deny that they don't set standards that sometime say that a person's life has reached a point where the simple cost of keeping them alive or making them well is not worth the financial benefit of the system as a whole? (stories are lined up in anticipation).

Quoting simonriat (Reply 43):
NO waiting to see if the patient has enough money.

Because the money has already been taken, whether the patient wanted that money taken or not, and the patient has no real decision as to whether that money will actually be used to help them.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 43):
If the patient is deemed ill enough for the procedure then the patient will have the procedure.

And if not then they are sent packing and now they are on their own.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 43):
I think it should be the specialist/ Dr who should say if I need a procedure is required, not my bank balance or my ability to pay.

And if you are denied, and still feel that the procedure is necessary, what are your options? I'm guessing your bank balance and ability to pay will matter highly. And are you saying the government doesn't publish standards that the doctors must apply as to whether a person is sick enough, or too sick, to recieve the help they desire?

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-14 05:35:00 and read 2513 times.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 43):
Could you please indicate which country you were in.

Experiences has been in Sweden, Belgium and Spain, from the early 70's till mid 90's.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 43):
I would be interested to learn how it works in the states.

My experience is wait list in the US are rather minimal as there is an economic incentive for parties to be accessible and get on with things. Its basically akin to typical service industries which want to see clients and offer a service.

While in Europe my experience was the total opposite, and even a doctors admitted to me there were limitation in access and even the existence particularly in the area of specialist once you got beyond your primary care providers. But even for primary care providers they were limited as workload and numbers of folks they were responsible for was large which resulted in often week long waits to get in to see them for basic things. I include dentist in this category also.

It is no coincidence that the concept of supplemental for profit health insurance has taken off in Europe in recent years also, which allows individuals broader access to doctors and services instead of being enslaved to the national system.

I'm sorry, but I much rather pay to play in a for profit system where the carrot is there as an incentive to providers, and the purchaser of the service can be in the deciding seat not Uncle Sam.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-14 05:58:53 and read 2502 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
This case was brought by our activist AG Cuccinelli, and does not enjoy wide support by the rest of the Commonwealth. Let's not get carried away.

SOrry but most of the country wants this repealed. And it does not matter whether you think he is an activist the mandate is unconstitutional.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 13):
And the World continues to laugh at the world's biggest economy and country that somehow can't even manage to have Universal Health Care for all it's citizens. Astounding really......that healthcare isn't a universal right in the USA and that petty politics and bickering takes presidence

Then why did the King of Saudi Arabia come to the States last month when he was sick and to Cuba, Great Britain, Sweden?

Quoting san747 (Reply 17):
Probably because the government understands that when an uninsured citizen uses health services without the ability to pay, the rest of us have to.

Still does not make it constitutional. If they do not like it then use the avenue the founders gave and try to change it.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
I don't like doing it - question is why do they??

Why not allow plans to be sold over state line, à la carte and funded thru a pool to by the insurance for those who trully need it. That would be far cheaper than anything they have in store for us. And would avoid the middle man in DC.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
My insurance would be a lot less if I didn't have to pay for "government mandated" things like, covering children up to 26 on their parents policy, mental health care, drug rehab, stop smoking classes, pre-natial care and delivery (my wife had a hysterectomy 30 years ago) and dozens of other feel good items politicians require insurance companies to cover because they were looking for votes from one bleeding heart group or another.

Amen...à la carte would be the way to go.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 19):
But I can't shop around and get just the coverage I want, a simple insurance policy that will pay if I am admitted to a hospital or have a catastrophic illness and let me cover my doctors visits. That would be real "health care reform".

But Obama care does nothing to lower costs only add more mandates

The governement mandates are what is killing us. Get them out of healtcare and we would all be better off.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 30):
- I fault Obama for caving to liberal concerns and trial lawyers and not going after a real cost driver: malpractice premiums driven by absurd lawsuits that forget doctors are human like the rest of us.

Malpractice and selling across state lines would of been a two page bill that would of sent shock waves through the system at no cost to the taxpayer.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-12-14 05:59:30 and read 2502 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 47):
I'm sorry, but I much rather pay to play in a for profit system where the carrot is there as an incentive to providers, and the purchaser of the service can be in the deciding seat not Uncle Sam.

That's fine, as long as you are comfortable with millions of American's with no healthcare spreading their disease and problems to the rest of society and slowly, but surely, dragging this country down to a 3rd world nation.

Quoting dxing (Reply 46):
Are you going to deny that they don't set standards that sometime say that a person's life has reached a point where the simple cost of keeping them alive or making them well is not worth the financial benefit of the system as a whole?

Private insurance companies do this all the time, so what's your point?

Quoting dxing (Reply 46):
And if not then they are sent packing and now they are on their own.

No different than private insurance. Again, what's your point?

Quoting dxing (Reply 46):
And are you saying the government doesn't publish standards that the doctors must apply as to whether a person is sick enough, or too sick, to recieve the help they desire?

Again, this is done by private insurance companies as well.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 06:18:34 and read 2491 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 49):
Private insurance companies do this all the time, so what's your point?

Simonriat's point was that somehow NHS does a better job of taking care of their constituents than our form of healthcare which I would disagree with, and did on several points. That was my point. His point that his health care is not measured by his bank balance is a false assumption in that if NHS policies, put togther with the help of bureaucrats no matter how much he may dismiss that, say that he is not eligible for a treatment or medication, he will have to pay out of his pocket to get what he thinks he needs. That is no different than what happens here as you pointed out.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-14 06:31:47 and read 2481 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 49):
That's fine, as long as you are comfortable with millions of American's with no healthcare spreading their disease and problems to the rest of society and slowly, but surely, dragging this country down to a 3rd world nation.

What is dragging us down and driving costs up is Uncle Sam. If they actually went after the cost in this bill instead of ideology our healtcare system would be on the way to healing already. The anti-insurance company argument is getting old.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Mir
Posted 2010-12-14 06:49:28 and read 2476 times.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 48):
Why not allow plans to be sold over state line

Because while the plan sounds good on the surface, you'd have a couple of states with company-friendly laws determine the health insurance laws for the entire country. South Dakota let the credit card companies basically write their credit card legislation in exchange for moving their businesses there - that's not what I want to see in the health insurance sector.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 07:11:30 and read 2450 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 52):
that's not what I want to see in the health insurance sector.

So, the government under Obamacare is going to tell you what you have to have in an insurance policy which will quite conceivably make them more expensive than they need to be, as witnessed by those companies and unions that are asking for waivers so they can keep insurance for their lowest wage earners. At least with cross state line sales you have options to choose from in terms of coverage. Under Obamacare those choices will be limited to what the HHS thinks you should have.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-14 07:30:27 and read 2445 times.

Quoting Mir (Reply 52):
Because while the plan sounds good on the surface, you'd have a couple of states with company-friendly laws determine the health insurance laws for the entire country.

Sorry but auto, accident and life are all sold across state lines without any problems. More choice is always better and will bring cost down. Limiting our choice is not what this country is about. With the Gov plan you have only one choice.


All we need is to be able to click on the net and starting checking boxes. Smoke...No, Alcohol...No, Obese....No, do you want to cover pregnacies? No. Mental health....No? That is the only rules and regulations I want to see. Give us what we want and get it from where we want. Bad service, regs or plans will be cut out by the consumer. We do not need the governemnt for that.

[Edited 2010-12-14 07:35:16]

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-12-14 07:33:16 and read 2444 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 50):
Simonriat's point was that somehow NHS does a better job of taking care of their constituents than our form of healthcare which I would disagree with, and did on several points.

You might disagree, but the fact is that most of Europe spends less per person on healthcare than America, has similar (if not longer life expectancies) and provides coverage to all. So by what metrics is the U.S. doing better?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 51):
What is dragging us down and driving costs up is Uncle Sam.

No, there are three items that are driving up healthcare costs.

1) An aging population that demands ever more resources and can't accept their own mortality

2) A population that fails to take preventative measures to protect their own health (creating billions in cost due to obesity, diabetes, etc)

3) A malpractice system that is overly litigious and hands out excessive awards

For #1, Obamacare does nothing and will not be able to do anything without conservatives screaming bloody murder about death panels. Obamacare actually addresses #2 pretty well. Obamacare does nothing to fix #3 and that is one area I will fault Obama on.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 08:07:50 and read 2431 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 55):
You might disagree, but the fact is that most of Europe spends less per person on healthcare than America, has similar (if not longer life expectancies) and provides coverage to all. So by what metrics is the U.S. doing better?

We spend more because we can afford it. They spend less, but they also pay their medical staff's less, wait longer, and in some cases, depending upon the country, have a higher mortality rate for certain diseases.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: WarRI1
Posted 2010-12-14 08:18:42 and read 2424 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 56):
We spend more because we can afford it. They spend less, but they also pay their medical staff's less, wait longer, and in some cases, depending upon the country, have a higher mortality rate for certain diseases.

Once again, an answer for every scenario. We spend more because we can afford it, highly laughable once again, we will be a third world economy without jobs to pay for what we can or cannot afford. I know the people with estates over 5 million will certainly be able to afford any cost to keep themselves healthy, the rest of us, tough luck.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-14 08:39:00 and read 2413 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 36):
Judge Hudson's decision does not attack the purchase mandate up front, but takes the view that there is no law or precedence whereby a person inaction, lack of desire to participate in and or benefit from, and refusal to enter into the "stream of commerce" by not purchasing a commodity in the private market is punishable.

Funny enough, it was the seminal case on commerce clause (Wickard v. Filburn) that in fact DID show that the federal government can regulate individual activity even when the individual had a lack of desire to participate in and or benefit from the stream of commerce.

This idea that you see expoused by health care opponents that there has never been a case requiring someone to act is utter horsedung since the very first case on the topic did exactly that.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 39):
I have lived under European government managed central social health care and never wish to do so again. Not only is the system a truly rationed one where your health care is decided by bureaucrats and all you are is a number on a waiting list, it also fails to properly take care of those in the system.

Besides being less expensive, how is that different from what the American system was before the health care bill?

Quoting dxing (Reply 44):
Quoting D L X (Reply 24):
Which is not most.

Which is what I said.

Nice revisionism.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 48):
SOrry but most of the country wants this repealed.

That does not make it unconstitutional.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 48):
And it does not matter whether you think he is an activist the mandate is unconstitutional.

Because you in your learned opinion say so?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 47):
I'm sorry, but I much rather pay to play in a for profit system where the carrot is there as an incentive to providers, and the purchaser of the service can be in the deciding seat not Uncle Sam.

You do understand that the current system is designed to make a corporation rich, not get you well, right? It is only a loose correlation between your health and their money.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 51):
If they actually went after the cost in this bill instead of ideology our healtcare system would be on the way to healing already.

Put up or shut up time -- in response to your comment, answer this question: what broke the health care system?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 54):
With the Gov plan you have only one choice.

FALSE! Where the hell do you get this stuff?

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 09:49:30 and read 2392 times.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 57):
We spend more because we can afford it, highly laughable once again,

The numbers don't lie. Just look at the number of elective cosmetic surgeries performed annually in this country. People in this country spend money on health care and that health care includes a lot of things that don't really have anything to do with saving their lives.

Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
Nice revisionism.

Are you going to start this type of posting again? If so why waste the time? Again and bold typed.

Quoting dxing (Reply 23):
From the story in the OP:

The ruling is the government’s first loss in a series of challenges to the law mounted in federal courts in Virginia, Michigan and Florida, where 20 states have joined an effort to have the statute thrown out.

That's 22 States and with the recent election results there are several other States that are set to join the suit or start their own. Not a majority today, but a month from now that will most likely be a different story.
Not a majority today equates to the same as "not most" but not any type of revisionism.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-14 10:37:12 and read 2375 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 44):
People have the right to not purchase health insurance if they wish to gamble with their lives, both real and financial.

Not if it's going to cost me later. 99 out of 100 people will seek treatment for ailment or injury regardless of whether they are insured - you can bet on that. Find me a sane person who will say "nyah, I have terrible abdominal pain and bleeding in my stools, but who needs a doctor??"  

This is the crux of the whole thing - I DON'T WANT TO PAY DOUBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE. I'd rather pay more now for all of us to pay less later. Fix the malpractice fraud as well and boom.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 48):
Then why did the King of Saudi Arabia come to the States last month when he was sick and to Cuba, Great Britain, Sweden?

Because we have the finest research universities developing experimental treatments in the world, bar none.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 47):
Sweden, Belgium and Spain,

Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Singapore. Funny how you left those success stories out.

Quoting dxing (Reply 59):
elective cosmetic surgeries

Are not medically necessary treatments except in the case of severe burns or deformity due to injury...next...

There's a multibillion dollar industry of quackery selling needless vitamin supplements, foot baths, and sonic muscle "reconstruction" as well. None of it is "health care" but yes, people are buying it. People are stupid - nothing new.

Quoting dxing (Reply 59):
People in this country spend money on health care

The types of treatment you are talking about are related to personal appearance and nothing else. New crowns, teeth whitening, botox injections and liposuction are not "health care". If they were, they would be covered by "health insurance".

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 47):

My experience is wait list in the US are rather minimal as there is an economic incentive for parties to be accessible and get on with things. Its basically akin to typical service industries which want to see clients and offer a service.

The longest wait time I experienced in Japan was 3 weeks to see an endocrinologist and that's only because I requested one who spoke English. After that I was able to make appointments at my leisure twice a week at a major university hospital in a metropolitan area of 9 million people. Further, when my wife's mother was having heart palpitations, we were able to take her to the local hospital to get an ECG and echocardiogram later the very same morning without an appointment. Wait time? 2 hours. Could hardly have done better with a visit to the ER.

Could it actually be because their system is organized and they know what they're doing?  
Quoting dxing (Reply 46):
Since it is national healthcare

Except it isn't as it's an expansion of coverage.

Quoting dxing (Reply 44):
True.

Health care is a highly complex industry with a lot of overlapping cost and access benefit tables. I'll take the opinion of physicians and insurance professionals as to what they think works best over that of the general public who only see sound bites on the issue on TV and in magazines.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-12-14 11:18:20 and read 2367 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37):
Health is a completely different thing - we're all going to die, that's a given. There is no opt out for dying - it's just a matter of how much pain and suffering leads up to it, particularly in the form of disease. Comparing to other types of insurance is garbage intellectual dishonesty - anybody can choose not to have a car, or a house, or to leave money to others should they die early. There is no way to opt out of health care because 99 out of 100 people with a serious injury or ailment will seek care for it. Life insurance is an optional thing and therefore the actuarial tables apply - for regular health care they should not.

The only intellectual dishonesty is calling something "insurance" when it isn't. Regulations that force people to buy "insurance" for yearly medical check ups is a lie, because you don't insure for certainties. You insure for risks. Of course, the insurance lobby loves when the government throws them this kind of juice bone, as they get to manage everyone's medical payments and get a cut from it.

[Edited 2010-12-14 11:19:32]

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-14 11:24:05 and read 2360 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 61):
Regulations that force people to buy "insurance" for yearly medical check ups is a lie, because you don't insure for certainties. You insure for risks. Of course, the insurance lobby loves when the government throws them this kind of juice bone, as they get to manage everyone's medical payments and get a cut from it.

Look, everyone knows that the big health insurers are going to win out big-time from this, and most certainly big pharma too. But there's nothing that can be done about the deep reach those entities have within the US system - so I really don't care if they benefit a bit from it. Not to mention they employ a hell of a lot of people and it's difficult to outsource much of what they do.

What do you want, legislation forcing United, Humana, BCBS and all the others to call themselves "health payment processors"??

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2010-12-14 11:42:48 and read 2354 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 44):

During medical school. After those 5 cases in one month how many other cases did you see where the patient had insurance or was able to pay? 5 more? 10 more?

Remarkably few, because the patients with insurance typically had their preventative healthcare and didn't get into these sorts of messes.

It's truly amazing how controlling blood pressure reduces the risk for stroke.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-12-14 11:51:08 and read 2347 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 62):
Look, everyone knows that the big health insurers are going to win out big-time from this, and most certainly big pharma too. But there's nothing that can be done about the deep reach those entities have within the US system - so I really don't care if they benefit a bit from it. Not to mention they employ a hell of a lot of people and it's difficult to outsource much of what they do.

What do you want, legislation forcing United, Humana, BCBS and all the others to call themselves "health payment processors"??

The semantics issue is what you hear from politicians. Whether they are being deceitful or just ignorant, deregulation will fix it regardless. Over time people will give up buying insurance with many of the things they are forced to buy because they will realize they are better off paying for them separately.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-12-14 12:24:00 and read 2336 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 56):
We spend more because we can afford it.

Then you won't have any problem paying MORE taxes to support Medicare/Medicaid, since "we can afford it". Since you don't want to mandate insurance (thereby forcing those of us with insurance to pay for the uninsured) and you think we have tons of money to throw at healthcare, you should have no problem with this.


Quoting PPVRA (Reply 61):
Regulations that force people to buy "insurance" for yearly medical check ups is a lie, because you don't insure for certainties. You insure for risks.

That's because annual checkup's help mitigate risk substantially. Why do you think pilots are REQUIRED to get a physical? It's to help mitigate the risk that they might have a heart attack (or other problem) while in-flight.

If people used preventative medicine, it would have a signficant impact on rising healthcare costs (see my point #2 in my previous post).

Quoting dxing (Reply 59):
The numbers don't lie. Just look at the number of elective cosmetic surgeries performed annually in this country. People in this country spend money on health care and that health care includes a lot of things that don't really have anything to do with saving their lives.

The top 20% yes, but what about the other 80% of Americans who don't have the money for the important stuff, nevermind the elective stuff.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Mir
Posted 2010-12-14 14:14:13 and read 2305 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 53):
So, the government under Obamacare is going to tell you what you have to have in an insurance policy which will quite conceivably make them more expensive than they need to be, as witnessed by those companies and unions that are asking for waivers so they can keep insurance for their lowest wage earners. At least with cross state line sales you have options to choose from in terms of coverage. Under Obamacare those choices will be limited to what the HHS thinks you should have.

At least I have a say in HHS policy by being able to vote for the president that appoints HHS' leader. Whereas, unless I happen to live in a state with laws favorable to health insurance companies, I'd have absolutely no say in what regulations they operate under.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-12-14 15:06:56 and read 2291 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 65):
That's because annual checkup's help mitigate risk substantially. Why do you think pilots are REQUIRED to get a physical? It's to help mitigate the risk that they might have a heart attack (or other problem) while in-flight.

If people used preventative medicine, it would have a signficant impact on rising healthcare costs (see my point #2 in my previous post).

The more we are able to mitigate risks, the less insurance makes sense. Likewise, the more we are able to predict pilot's health, the more we eat into the logic of keeping another pilot (co-pilot is basically an insurance policy) in the cockpit. Passing laws that require to keep foreseeable events in insurance packages will drive their cost up, while making it less and less affordable (i.e., more people without coverage) for things that you should actually be buying insurance for.

The two examples you give on your previous post (obesity and diabetes) are great examples of diseases that can be prevented and doing so would save a lot of medical expenses, but you're not going to address it by giving people free access to healthcare either. These diseases are more related to personal choices: we've all been tired of hearing stories of "doctor said to lose weight" and nothing ever really changing. You can see that even in Europe and the rest of the world, their waist continues to expand too.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-14 18:16:09 and read 2264 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
Not if it's going to cost me later.
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
I DON'T WANT TO PAY DOUBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE. I'd rather pay more now for all of us to pay less later.

Except it doesn't work that way. Once you open up all services to all the people, without them having to pay a dime, or paying a drastically reduced fee, the first thing is that the system overloads, and then the wait time goes up, and then the cost goes up as the system tries to adjust to accomodate the added load. So not only will you pay double, you'll end up waiting longer for that same procedure, especially the simple ones.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
Are not medically necessary treatments
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
The types of treatment you are talking about are related to personal appearance and nothing else. New crowns, teeth whitening, botox injections and liposuction are not "health care". If they were, they would be covered by "health insurance".

They are still medical procedures that are counted among "health care costs". BTW, my insurance covers 80% of the price of a crown. Since I don't worry about teeth whitening, botox, or lipo I wouldn't know about those but considering the amount of clinics that deal with those things just here in Houston, it's pretty obvious they are making money.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
Except it isn't as it's an expansion of coverage.

Correct, it is an expansion of government. Check the hiring that will need to be done to administer the program, just one example of added cost above and beyond what what is spent now.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
I'll take the opinion of physicians and insurance professionals as to what they think works best over that of the general public who only see sound bites on the issue on TV and in magazines.

And I'll take the opinion of the American public that has seen more than one publicly fiananced program grow well beyond what it was originally intended to be as well as intrude farther and further than anyone intended when the legislation was passed. I will also take the opinion of the American public that has seen one public program after another cost more and be horribly managed by a government that has no concept of cost control.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 65):
Then you won't have any problem paying MORE taxes to support Medicare/Medicaid, since "we can afford it".

You are talking apples and oranges. If I decide to get an implant tooth which my insurance company doesn't cover versus a bridge that the insurance company does, and pay for it myself, that is my business. That is the point of Americans spending more because they can afford it.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 65):
The top 20% yes, but what about the other 80% of Americans who don't have the money for the important stuff, nevermind the elective stuff.

If you decide to use real numbers instead of democratic talking points we'll have place to start. The majority of Americans have health insurance. They have polled time and again that they are satisfied with that insurance. They have also polled that they don't like this bill. It's their money, yet you don't want to let them spend it as they see fit. What's wrong with that picture?

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Zentraedi
Posted 2010-12-14 19:40:17 and read 2245 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 23):
We've discussed this before. Exactly how many times does that happen in a year at one hospital? Not many if I remember correctly. Again, the outlandish is portrayed as the norm. It seems to be the only way some can advance their argument.

First of all, "You should have to pay because it doesn't happen often" is still a nonsequitur.

Second, every time this comes up the justification for forcing hospitals to pay is avoided or reduced to a "cuz I said so.", rather than being honest and logically consistent. If you're going to force others to pay because of some misguided Christian philosophy, then you better well hold to that ideal and pay too.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: san747
Posted 2010-12-14 21:36:26 and read 2224 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):

And I'll take the opinion of the American public that has seen more than one publicly fiananced program grow well beyond what it was originally intended to be as well as intrude farther and further than anyone intended when the legislation was passed. I will also take the opinion of the American public that has seen one public program after another cost more and be horribly managed by a government that has no concept of cost control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite

You argue and articulate your points well, and even though I don't agree with them most of the time, you are obviously a smart guy, so it's strange to see you use such blatant logical fallacies in your argument here.

Why you or anyone would disregard the opinions of experts and professionals on this subject and defer to "the people" and their under-informed emotionally-charged opinions baffles me. Is it because those experts/professionals largely disagree with your feelings on this matter?

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-14 21:53:44 and read 2222 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):
Check the hiring that will need to be done to administer the program, just one example of added cost above and beyond what what is spent now.

Support jobs in the medical profession are already predicted to be among the fastest growing job sectors the next 25 years. There is nothing wrong with that. My only real concern about cost increases is growing reliance on advanced technologies that have not proven themselves to be worth it. A lot of experienced physicians will till you kids just coming out of medical school now are losing the art of making a diagnosis in favor of relying on imaging and other technologies to give them all manner of extraneous information. There's a balance that needs to be struck there and I'm not convinced it has been struck quite yet.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):
Once you open up all services to all the people, without them having to pay a dime, or paying a drastically reduced fee, the first thing is that the system overloads,

Where is the empirical evidence for that? This is not a soup kitchen bread line we're talking about. I'm certain physicians who would bear the brunt of such an "overload" would have voiced their concerns about such a phenomenon by now.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):
They are still medical procedures

I don't view them as such. They are cosmetic procedures performed by medical professionals who have sold themselves out. More power to them - it's still not "health care". Anything one does to their body that can be seen as more of an improvement than repair or preemptive action should not be covered.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):
If I decide to get an implant tooth which my insurance company doesn't cover versus a bridge that the insurance company does, and pay for it myself, that is my business. That is the point of Americans spending more because they can afford it.

That's great, but it has very little to do with the concept of a reasonable baseline of care coverage.

Quoting san747 (Reply 70):
you are obviously a smart guy, so it's strange to see you use such blatant logical fallacies in your argument here.

Because it is based entirely on a knee jerk "anything the government touches is bad" emotional reaction. Personally I feel looking back in 15-20 years this whole bru-ha-ha will be seen as mostly having touched off a huge boon for private insurers as their business got a 35% boost literally overnight. But as with the mountain climbing analogy before, the reason for making a run for the summit, like the health care crisis we now face, is simple: because it's there.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: simonriat
Posted 2010-12-15 03:35:06 and read 2194 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 46):
And if not then they are sent packing and now they are on their own.
Quoting dxing (Reply 46):
And if you are denied, and still feel that the procedure is necessary, what are your options? I'm guessing your bank balance and ability to pay will matter highly. And are you saying the government doesn't publish standards that the doctors must apply as to whether a person is sick enough, or too sick, to receive the help they desire?



I think Fly amongst others have given enough for me not to comment on most of your points, however with regard to the above.

So I think the example I gave with regard to nose jobs, is brilliant for the point you raise. The young man took the advice and accepted the procedure can wait. I guess there is still nothing stopping him going to some plastic surgeon who will do the procedure, who then will continue to play football and should the worst happen will then be down to the NHS to repair the damage. Yes Money can buy you anything but it may not solve the problem.

And what are you saying with regard to if you still feel like you need the procedure. That you know better than the Drs.

Also are you saying that just becuase you can afford and say another person cant but still needs the procedure, that we should just forget about the other guy?

With regards to Government standards, not really applicable. There are many factors which govern if a patient is suitable for a procedure. Example Tonsils and adenoids, removal of. If a child presented to a GP on several occasions with tonsillitis chances are they would be referred to a specialist and removed, a few years ago now one of the many agencies here in the UK called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) published a report in 2006 with regard to the validity of such a procedure taking place so regularly. The guidelines in the report were taken from RCT (Recent Clinical Trials) undertaken privately (Private Hospitals) and publicly (NHS teaching hospitals), and suggested that especially when it came to children the most effective management of the condition is rest, recuperation, pain relief and or antibiotics during the infection and the most effective treatment as opposed to surgery was time for the child to grow. Thereby not having to put a child through a procedure, but also saving money, to be put elsewhere.

I could quote many others but this is not the place an not even in relation to the OP.

It would be interesting to see how that works in the states.

The Drs also follow World Health Organization Rules and many others. So its not clear cut as to say the Government can just No, for a complex case it would have to go through many stages perhaps even a court of law.

I am not saying the NHS is the be all and all, it does have a lot of problems, waiting list size being an example, maximum of a 4 hour wait in A & E to see a Dr. Im not even saying it is better than the system you have over in the states. But what I am saying is that with the NHS it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, you will still receive treatment, if deemed suitable.

Thanks btw to LAX for responding about countries, again cant comment never really had to use their services.

Hopefully if my families plans come together and we do move over there, it will be interesting to see.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-12-15 06:01:09 and read 2178 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):
It's their money, yet you don't want to let them spend it as they see fit. What's wrong with that picture?

A majority of American's support having a government health insurance option. Yet you don't want them to have it. What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203

In fact, one of the reasons Obamacare doesn't poll as well is because it lacks a government option which conservatives went to great lengths to kill....despite public polling showing a majority wanting it.

Quoting dxing (Reply 68):
And I'll take the opinion of the American public that has seen more than one publicly fiananced program grow well beyond what it was originally intended to be as well as intrude farther and further than anyone intended when the legislation was passed. I will also take the opinion of the American public that has seen one public program after another cost more and be horribly managed by a government that has no concept of cost control.

You better be careful because the overwhelming majority of American's oppose any cuts to Social Security in order to fix the deficit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...c-opposes-cutting-so_n_678374.html

The majority of Americans also want HIGHER taxes on the wealthy and Wall Street.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/7333467.html

So since you value the opinion of the American public so much, you won't mind as taxes are raised on the wealthy??

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-15 06:09:41 and read 2174 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
in response to your comment, answer this question: what broke the health care system?



To much government intervention/regulation. And now you want to fix it by adding more government. Eliminate the middle man of Uncle Sam and you will see costs go down. Eliminate the lawyers and you will see costs go down. Give the ability to sell across state lines and you will see costs go down. All of this would take 10 pages instead of 3,000.

Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
That does not make it unconstitutional.
Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
Because you in your learned opinion say so?



No because the Constitution says so. No matter how you spin it there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the Feds and enumerated power to make us by a product. Or even to provide healthcare at all. If you want it to say that then go ahead and use the power the founders gave and make an amendmnet.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 47):
Sweden, Belgium and Spain,

Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Singapore. Funny how you left those success stories out.



Nice way to re-spin the point that those where systems he actually used.  
Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 54):
With the Gov plan you have only one choice.

FALSE! Where the hell do you get this stuff?



TRUE! If the governemnt mandates then they are eliminating choice.

Quoting D L X (Reply 58):

Funny enough, it was the seminal case on commerce clause (Wickard v. Filburn) that in fact DID show that the federal government can regulate individual activity even when the individual had a lack of desire to participate in and or benefit from the stream of commerce.



First off that decision was made as with many others at the time by a progressive stacked court by Roosevelt. In the previous 150 years no such ruling had been made. That decision cemented the “intrastate commerce” doctrine that “constitutionalized” any federal law regulating commerce within a state as opposed to commerce among the several states. And the decision was that Filburn could not grow wheat for his own use. Filburn in no way participated or affected any flow of commerce between states. The wheat was for feeding his own Hogs.It also in no way forced him to buy a product. This ruling was one of the most intrusive and idiotic in the history of this country and spawned the largest increase in Federal Government power into our lives undoing the whole history of our country in one black robed activist coup.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-15 06:37:30 and read 2166 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 48):
And it does not matter whether you think he is an activist the mandate is unconstitutional.

Because you in your learned opinion say so?
Quote:
The Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, in order to explain the Constitution to the People and induce them to ratify it and the records of the Federal Convention of 1787 kept by James Madison.

In Federalist No. 22 (4th Para), Hamilton said:

The interfering regulations of some States have given just cause of complaint to others, and if not restrained by a national control, would be multipliedmtill they becamemserious sources of animosity and impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy. “The commerce of the German empire is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the navigable rivers [of] Germany are rendered almost useless.” Though the people of this country might never permit this to be applicable to us, yet we may expect, from the conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would come to be treated by the others in no better light…

In Federalist No. 42 (9th Para), Madison said

…A very material object of this power [to regulate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…

See also Federalist No. 44 (8th Para) and 56 (6th Para), for more to the same effect.

Madison’s Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 show:

Thursday, August 16th:

…Mr. Madison. 1. the power of taxing exports is proper in itself, and as the States cannot with propriety exercise it separately, it ought to be vested in them collectively…3. it would be unjust to the States whose produce was exported by their neighbours, to leave it subject to be taxed by the latter. This was a grievance which had already filled [New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and N. Carolina] with loud complaints, as it related to imports, and they would be equally authorized by taxes by the States on exports….

See also Tuesday, August 21 for Mr. Ellsworth’s comment that the power of regulating trade between the States will protect them against each other, and Tuesday, August 28 for Gouverneur Morris’ comment that the power to regulate trade between the States was necessary to prevent the Atlantic States from taxing the Western States.

Five clauses in the Constitution: Art. I, §8, cl.1; Art. I, § 9, cl.5; Art. I, § 9, cl.6; Art. I, §10, cl.2; & Art. I, §10, cl.3, give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause. The Constitution gives Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." The word "regulate" meant, at that time, to make regular, or uniform.

Quote:
Alexander Hamilton responded by saying buying and selling was somewhat related to the regulation of trade, but that type of regulation “falls more aptly within the province of the local jurisdictions than within that of the general government.” Hamilton had argued the “supreme legislature has only general powers, and the civil and domestic concerns of the people are regulated by the laws of the several states.”

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the “commerce clause” extends to local intrastate activities

Charles Evans Hughes (Chief Justice,1930-1941) said the Constitution is “what the judges say it is.”

That is judicial activism. Not the founders intent.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-15 07:12:50 and read 2157 times.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
in response to your comment, answer this question: what broke the health care system?

To much government intervention/regulation. And now you want to fix it by adding more government.

That's rich! Care to provide some facts to back that up?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
Give the ability to sell across state lines and you will see costs go down.

I'm not opposed to that. But do you know who is? Your precious "states' rights" people. People like yourself from time to time.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
Eliminate the lawyers and you will see costs go down.

I think you meant eliminate the negligent doctors.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
TRUE! If the governemnt mandates then they are eliminating choice.

Utter baloney. You still have myriad choices of health care providers even under the new plan.

You need to stop making stuff up.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 75):
The Federalist Papers,

Oh my. Did you really just cite the Federalist Papers to tell you what the Constitution says?
The Federalist Papers are not even a governmental paper, let alone our national charter. It is not a source.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 75):
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the “commerce clause” extends to local intrastate activities

That's right!! That supports MY argument, not yours.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-15 08:30:14 and read 2151 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
I'm not opposed to that. But do you know who is? Your precious "states' rights" people. People like yourself from time to time

I have never heard anybody claim states rights when it comes to interstate commerce. Including myself. Enumerated powers is what we are talking about

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
Eliminate the lawyers and you will see costs go down.

I think you meant eliminate the negligent doctors

You do need a better system for eliminating bad doctors. But sueing and making money from an honest mistake or complication is not the answer.

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 75):
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court said the “commerce clause” extends to local intrastate activities

That's right!! That supports MY argument, not yours.

That in no way supports your argument. It just shows judiacial activism on the part of the Roosevelt courts. Not the founders intent which is simple and easy to understand.

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
TRUE! If the governemnt mandates then they are eliminating choice.

Utter baloney. You still have myriad choices of health care providers even under the new plan.

You need to stop making stuff up.

I do not have a myriad of choices. And I do not have a myriad of options due to governement mandates. If it was opened across state lines and the govenemnt stopped inserting mandates then I would have true choice. Nothing made up aout that.

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 75):
The Federalist Papers,

Oh my. Did you really just cite the Federalist Papers to tell you what the Constitution says?
The Federalist Papers are not even a governmental paper, let alone our national charter. It is not a source

Wow you really are living in a Progressive utopia dreamworld. So tell me what government paper has the portion of "seperation of Church and state". Oh wait a minute that comes from some old letter to a Pastor. It is not a source. The thought that the Federalist papers and the minutes from the comvention are not used as sources for Founders intent is laughable. So show me in our national charter where it says that the commerce clause allow the Feds to make us purchase a product?

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-15 08:44:29 and read 2145 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 76):
That's rich! Care to provide some facts to back that up?

It seems eveyone but you knows that Medicare has skewed the system way out of order. Then add on top of that the costs of insurance from mandates that providers must provide that many do not need and the costs rise even more. And another cost factor that the government has placed on the system is the inaction in dealing with illegal aliens and removing them from the system. And like I posted earlier the lawyers in congress refusing to anything about lawyers has caused another layer of cost to the system. The problem with healtcare has been cost. But it seems Obama and the left has turned it into a "coverage" problem. Lower the cost and more will be able to cover themselves . We all know this healtcare plan is not about cost but about control. Which is why most Americans are still against it.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-12-15 09:17:54 and read 2137 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 73):
A majority of American's support having a government health insurance option. Yet you don't want them to have it. What's wrong with this picture?

More sophist reasoning from the left.

I have no problem at all if you want a public option, just keep me and my finances out of it if I choose not to seek it. Alas, that will never, ever happen. Choice? You don't know the meaning of choice. The government bailed out private institutions against my will, you think they will ever let something like their all-time favorite pet-project public health option go into chapter 7 because it ran into financial difficulties? Never. Gonna. Happen.

The "choice" or "option" they are trying to sell us is a fraud.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-15 09:22:57 and read 2131 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
I have no problem at all if you want a public option, just keep me and my finances out of it if I choose not to seek it. Alas, that will never, ever happen. Choice? You don't know the meaning of choice. The government bailed out private institutions against my will, you think they will ever let something like their all-time favorite pet-project public health option go into chapter 7 because it ran into financial difficulties? Never. Gonna. Happen.

Agree

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 73):
A majority of American's support having a government health insurance option. Yet you don't want them to have it. What's wrong with this picture?

I am sure they do as long as someone else is paying for it. It is "free" after all. Just like people who enjoy public schools because someone else is paying for it. All of these programs need an opt out check box. other wise you do not have a choice.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: san747
Posted 2010-12-15 09:42:47 and read 2126 times.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 80):
All of these programs need an opt out check box. other wise you do not have a choice.

I wasn't aware that public schools were student's only option. I guess the charter school my father teaches at and I graduated from, nor the private Christian high school one of my best friends went to don't exist.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 80):

I am sure they do as long as someone else is paying for it.

When there are substantial amounts of uninsured people using health services, someone else- namely you and me- IS paying for it. If we make sure every American has some form of health insurance, everyone will be able to pay for themselves.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2010-12-15 10:21:37 and read 2119 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
More sophist reasoning from the left.

You're missing the point. Dxing believes that we should follow opinion polls on the issues. I simply cited the opinion polls that he believes we should govern by.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 79):
The government bailed out private institutions against my will

No, they didn't. You voted for the politicians that approved the bailout...including the former President.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 80):
All of these programs need an opt out check box. other wise you do not have a choice.

I like how "choice" is all of the sudden so important to conservatives.

Abortion? Conservatives oppose women having the right to choose.
Gay marriage? Conseratives oppose gays having the right to choose to get married.
The draft? Conservatives oppose the right to choose not to enlist.

Now all of the sudden you are worried about choice??

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-15 10:32:18 and read 2115 times.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 74):
Nice way to re-spin the point that those where systems he actually used.

Yes, and nice of you to ignore the experiences of those of us who have also lived overseas and experienced successful systems that don't have atrocious waiting times or rationed limitations on choice.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 77):
I do not have a myriad of choices.

Well I did when I lived overseas. My mother in law didn't like the cardiologist she saw at her local hospital, so she called up a university hospital in a nearby city and got an appointment there. When she wasn't happy with them, she later changed to a private hospital in her city again and found a doctor she liked. Point is, under Japanese universal insurance, she was able to shop around and see whoever the hell she wanted to - just takes a phone call.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 80):
It is "free" after all.

It's still free now! You and me pay higher premiums to cover the costs of ERs and outpatient providers who get stiffed every time an uninsured or underinsured person uses their services. Then we pay again when providers like sliding scale clinics and county facilities use taxpayer money to cover their services. Why do you want this madness to continue? It's just mind-boggling.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2010-12-15 11:02:31 and read 2107 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 58):
You do understand that the current system is designed to make a corporation rich, not get you well, right? It is only a loose correlation between your health and their money.

And nothing wrong with that. Matter of fact its a wonderful thing to let capitalism work.

As a business owner myself, I have no problem seeing companies profit provided they provide a decent service in return to their clients (which to date is exactly what I have gotten).

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-15 12:01:45 and read 2091 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 84):
And nothing wrong with that. Matter of fact its a wonderful thing to let capitalism work.

As a business owner myself, I have no problem seeing companies profit provided they provide a decent service in return to their clients (which to date is exactly what I have gotten).

Don't get me wrong. As a person in a service industry that makes money by providing a service, I am all about capitalism. But here's the big difference: I make more money based on how well I lawyer for my clients. Insurance companies make more money based on how LITTLE they pay out to clients. In other words, their pecuniary interests are not aligned with your interest in being healthy. That is a major problem, and it is a significant reason that health care costs are going up but people are not getting healthier.

So don't argue that capitalism will make people healthier. It is almost guaranteed not to.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2010-12-15 12:14:24 and read 2086 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 82):
No, they didn't. You voted for the politicians that approved the bailout...including the former President.

And if you voted for neither? What if you voted for one because you expected him not to bail anybody out, but then he turned around and bailout everybody anyways?

If someone in the private markets tried to dump their liability on me, even though I had nothing to do with it, I'd have a lawsuit in my hands and the court would stop this type of shenanigans from happening. Congress, however, actually does this to people! And where are the courts to protect us? Oh right, congress writes the laws and they make sure they exempt themselves from the court's enforcements. . . they want a free pass, they don't want laws that apply to citizens like us to apply to them.

And this isn't just a criticism of democrats, obviously, since Bush and John "bail out" Boehner did the same thing.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-15 12:21:18 and read 2082 times.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 86):
And if you voted for neither?

That's democracy. Sometimes your brethren disagree with you and vote a different way than you did. All you can say is maybe your guy will win next time.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-15 13:59:41 and read 2057 times.

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 69):
First of all, "You should have to pay because it doesn't happen often" is still a nonsequitur.

Anyone trying to use an extreme minority as a logical reason to do anything is pretty ludicrous. Using examples that are far and few inbetween is also a non-starter. Airlines don't like to divert planes because it's expensive and time consuming, but it happens, and if you think that isn't factored into the price of your ticket guess again. So it is not just health care where this sort of thing happens. It's generally refered to as "the cost of doing business".

Quoting Zentraedi (Reply 69):
Second, every time this comes up the justification for forcing hospitals to pay is avoided or reduced to a "cuz I said so.", rather than being honest and logically consistent. If you're going to force others to pay because of some misguided Christian philosophy, then you better well hold to that ideal and pay too.

Well, first, where the Christian philosophy idea comes from is beyond me, this is about finance, not religion. Secondly, the hospital has chosen to be in the business of treating peoples health so no one is "forcing" them to do anything. Nor has anyone here said "cuz I said so" so both those examples are weak at best. Since I pay for my insurance I've already made my decision haven't I?

Finally, when someone says it costs "millions" to treat an individual I am always suspicious since we already know that an insurance company is going to get a much better rate than a single individual paying for the same services. And both those figures are going to be substantially higher than what the actual cost of the material and time involved of the services rendered are. Now some are going to argue that who am I to tell them how much they can charge or earn and they are right but that does not change the fact that "millions" is an abstract figure when actual costs are tallied. And that does not even begin to touch on what figure the hospital, like the airline, like the department store, adds to the cost of everything to cover unintended losses such as patients who can't pay, flights that divert, or merchandise that is damaged or stolen. So using the odd "this guy couldn't pay and cost us milllions" is a non starter when that one guy represents an extreme minority of all patients the hospital sees in a month or a year.

Quoting san747 (Reply 70):
You argue and articulate your points well, and even though I don't agree with them most of the time, you are obviously a smart guy, so it's strange to see you use such blatant logical fallacies in your argument here.

Well I guess I can still thank you for the compliment even though it is couched in an insult.

Quoting san747 (Reply 70):
Why you or anyone would disregard the opinions of experts and professionals on this subject and defer to "the people" and their under-informed emotionally-charged opinions baffles me. Is it because those experts/professionals largely disagree with your feelings on this matter?

Not too far above I'm told that insurance companies are all in cahoots to raise prices and deny coverage yet when this is pointed out to be false and that medicare is actually one of the slowest to pay, and undeniably the largest denier of payment I am told that you can't trust the "experts". Can't have it both ways. Looking at government programs the success stories, good programs that come in at or under cost and do what they say they will, are far and few inbetween and the public is not fooled. It's the publics money that is being spent, not these professionals, so they have a right to be very suspicious as one question in the linked poll below shows. I trust the voters to protect their money, I have no trust in politicians or bureaucrats to do the same.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
Where is the empirical evidence for that?

Look at Simonriat's post, he even admits there is waiting over in the UK. We know that there is waiting and rationing for services in Canada. It's all been posted before and you can look it up if you are interested. Please don't say it's my responsibility to do that, it's your responsibility to do the search and get caught up on your own. But you really don't have to look any farther than the State you currently live in and what happened when they tried to insure all the children a few years back and then had to back away due to the fact it was obvious it was going to swamp the system and bankrupt the State.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
I'm certain physicians who would bear the brunt of such an "overload" would have voiced their concerns about such a phenomenon by now.

Polls already posted have shown that a lot of physicians are thinking about getting out of the medical profession, especially those that are treating medicare patients.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
I don't view them as such.

That's fine but does not change the fact they are included in what is spent on "health care" in this country.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
Anything one does to their body that can be seen as more of an improvement than repair or preemptive action should not be covered.

Lasik? That cuts the cost needed for new glasses every couple of years. My tooth implant? I'd argue that I actually saved my insurance company money by getting the implant even though it was not covered. Doing a bridge would have entailed damaging the two teeth on either side of the tooth I lost. The implant did not damage teeth so that sometime in the future they may not have to be worked on, and as long as I don't start chewing on rocks, the implant should outlast all my other teeth.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
That's great, but it has very little to do with the concept of a reasonable baseline of care coverage.

And as you've just defined, different people have different opinions on what "baseline" means. Unfortunately under a government run program you don't get to pick your "baseline", it is done for you no matter what you might think is right for you.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 71):
Because it is based entirely on a knee jerk "anything the government touches is bad" emotional reaction.

There you go with the emotional response again. It has nothing to do with what my knee may be doing, it has everything to do with cost containment which the government is notoriously very bad at.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 72):

Also are you saying that just becuase you can afford and say another person cant but still needs the procedure, that we should just forget about the other guy?

No, but on the other hand I should not be denied a procedure when I can afford it. The person who can't afford it most likely is eligible for government aid to get the procedure if they really need it.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 72):
And what are you saying with regard to if you still feel like you need the procedure. That you know better than the Drs.

I am saying that if I don't like the doctors opinion, under our system I can go get a second, or even a third opinion.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 72):
It would be interesting to see how that works in the states.

As far as I know, automatic tonsillectomy's stopped being done in this country back when I was a boy but I will defer to Doclightening on that matter.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 72):
So its not clear cut as to say the Government can just No, for a complex case it would have to go through many stages perhaps even a court of law.

But it is clear that they do, and they do here in this coutry as well as medicare is the biggest denier of payment of all insurance companies surveyed.

Quoting simonriat (Reply 72):
But what I am saying is that with the NHS it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, you will still receive treatment, if deemed suitable.

The same happens here, if you are poor there is medicaid, if you are rich or even of moderate means, you will have chose a level of insurance that is compatiable to your budget.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 73):
A majority of American's support having a government health insurance option. Yet you don't want them to have it. What's wrong with this picture?

You are providing a broad statement that contains a lot of caveauts. Since your link does not contain a link to the actual poll or poll questions I'll use a couple of other to show you what I mean.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CB...re.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

When asked if they should be taxed more to pay for a public option, the answer is no.

But there are concerns to overcome. Many Americans are concerned that
their own health care may be compromised if the government is
involved, and while they are generally willing to pay more in taxes
for universal coverage, that support drops when dollar amounts are
mentioned. Few support -- and many are unsure about -- some of the
specific policy options that have been proposed, including creating a
government insurance pool for purchasing health coverage. By two to
one, Americans disapprove of taxing employer health benefits, and many
are uncertain.


So yeah, everyone is for it, until you talk about who has to pay for it or until you fix a cost that will be added to their tax bill and everyone seems to be in agreement that their health care will suffer for it. So it's easy to say "they are all for it" because absent any specifics, everyone is for the ice cream, until they find out they have to do the yard work to earn it.

Additionally,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

Independents and senior citizens, two groups crucial to the debate, have warmed to the idea of a public option, and are particularly supportive if it would be administered by the states and limited to those without access to affordable private coverage

So as long as the federal government is not involved and the public option is severly limited they are all for it. Seniors have already said keep your mits off their medicare when it comes to financing any public option. So just like health care reform, everyone is for it, unitl you start talking specifics and then support goes out the window on a number of factors. But you're right, a majority of people want it, they just don't want to pay for it and that is the really important part you left out.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 73):
You better be careful because the overwhelming majority of American's oppose any cuts to Social Security in order to fix the deficit.

Same thing, you've provided a link that provides a summary but not the actual questions and results. But again, I'll use another link to show what I mean.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...cut-with-entitlements-secured.html

The public wants Congress to keep its hands off entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. They oppose cuts in most other major domestic programs and defense. They want to maintain subsidies for farmers and tax breaks like the mortgage-interest deduction. And they’re against an increase in the gasoline tax.

So again, as long as someone else is paying for the ice cream, they don't care where the cuts come from as long as their ice cream is left alone. Did you notice a majority oppose cuts in defense? Remember that next time you advocate for it,

“The idea that we can solve our structural-deficit problems merely by asking more of the well-off is totally unrealistic,” said David Walker, who was U.S. comptroller general from 1998 to 2008 and now leads a group advocating against deficits. “The math simply doesn’t work.”

Just like everyone thinking that a public option available for all. Sounds good until you do the math.

Finally,

Overall, 67 percent of Americans want means-testing and 51 percent think the payroll tax cap should be raised. Just 31 percent want to see cost-of-living increases trimmed and 37 percent say the government should gradually raise the age of Social Security eligibility to 69.

So the majority does support cutting SS payments on a means tested basis, which is what I have advocated all along.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 73):
So since you value the opinion of the American public so much, you won't mind as taxes are raised on the wealthy??

I've been saying for quite some time that taxes are going to have to go up on everyone but unless they are coupled with responsible spending cuts it will be a worthless adventure since the politicians will just find a way to spend the extra money without addressing the big problem which is the debt. Same with health care, until the costs can be lowered through responsible legislation, everything else is just a further waste of money that the government doesn't have, and a further intrusion into private peoples lives that they are not looking foreward too.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 82):
You're missing the point. Dxing believes that we should follow opinion polls on the issues.

Then you missed my point. I said I trust the voters to make the decisions, not a group of experts with an obvious conflict of interest. That means actual legislation put up for a vote, not a carefully worded poll question by a group seeking to get the answer they want.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 83):
Well I did when I lived overseas. My mother in law didn't like the cardiologist she saw at her local hospital, so she called up a university hospital in a nearby city and got an appointment there. When she wasn't happy with them, she later changed to a private hospital in her city again and found a doctor she liked. Point is, under Japanese universal insurance, she was able to shop around and see whoever the hell she wanted to - just takes a phone call.

According to our President, when answering a reporters question about whether her mom would still have gotten the pace maker she needed his answer was most likely after the first visit, the resources would have been better spent elsewhere.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 83):
You and me pay higher premiums to cover the costs of ERs and outpatient providers who get stiffed every time an uninsured or underinsured person uses their services.

Yet you pay more for your auto insurance for the exact same thing. You pay more for every day items you buy to cover the added cost of those that pilfer items without paying for them. Yet somehow you only get incensed when it comes to health care.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-15 14:32:07 and read 2055 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
Lasik?
Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
tooth implant

Both repairs if you ask me. They should be covered. Eyesight and healthy teeth are not optional care in my book.

Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
it has everything to do with cost containment which the government is notoriously very bad at

As is the current system.

Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
Yet you pay more for your auto insurance for the exact same thing. You pay more for every day items you buy to cover the added cost of those that pilfer items without paying for them. Yet somehow you only get incensed when it comes to health care.

I have the choice to drive or not drive. I have the choice to buy everyday items or switch to generic ones or not buy any at all. People don't have a choice with health care - with the exception of insanity, 99% of people will seek treatment for something ailing them - it is a default human condition to prevent things like pain and early death. This is a highly logical point that is so easily overlooked.

Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
when answering a reporters question about whether her mom would still have gotten the pace maker she needed his answer was most likely after the first visit, the resources would have been better spent elsewhere.

And I certainly blame him for that - Obama himself is probably one of the key reasons these proposals are lacking popular support as his efforts to communicate their intent have been pathetic, to put it mildly.

Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
Polls already posted have shown that a lot of physicians are thinking about getting out of the medical profession, especially those that are treating medicare patients.

With their rapidly declining quality of work life and widdling return on investment for their education, I don't blame them if they do. But part of that is societal - as health care has become increasingly commodified and the media picks on the "worst apple" cases of physician misconduct, respect for who doctors are and what they do has dropped well below what they otherwise deserve.

Quoting dxing (Reply 88):
Look at Simonriat's post, he even admits there is waiting over in the UK. We know that there is waiting and rationing for services in Canada.

Those situations certainly exist but it's definitely not the case everywhere. And it's not like there isn't any waiting here either. If you want to see a specialist at a highly-regarded university hospital like UCSF, just as one example, be prepared to wait a minimum of three or four months.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-15 15:38:33 and read 2046 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 89):
And it's not like there isn't any waiting here either. If you want to see a specialist at a highly-regarded university hospital like UCSF, just as one example, be prepared to wait a minimum of three or four months.

Exactly.

It seems the people doing the most complaining are also people who have never actually been terribly sick.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-16 05:01:31 and read 2008 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 89):
Both repairs if you ask me.

Not really, as I said I could have gotten a bridge and the insurance company would have paid 80%, but I didn't want to damage to perfectly good teeth to fix the one. Or I could have done nothing and just lived without the tooth. I wear glasses, could have gotten lasik years ago but didn't so that's not a "repair" either.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 89):
As is the current system.

But with the current system you can choose to go with another provider if you don't like the one your with. Not so when the government is the only game in town.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 89):
I have the choice to drive or not drive.

You also have the choice to not select uninsured motorist, but you wont' have a choice to select self insured if the government is the only game in town.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 89):
If you want to see a specialist at a highly-regarded university hospital like UCSF, just as one example, be prepared to wait a minimum of three or four months.

I'd be willing to bet you that for whatever ailment you wish to go see a specialist at that hospital, we can find another hospital with just as good a reputation where the wait won't be that long.

Quoting D L X (Reply 90):
It seems the people doing the most complaining are also people who have never actually been terribly sick.

So that's the standard? You can only make suggestions if you've been really sick? In that case those that don't pay any income tax as they get it all back in their refund should have no say in how much anyone else pays.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-16 07:20:43 and read 1992 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 91):
So that's the standard? You can only make suggestions if you've been really sick?

No, I think you misunderstand my point. Your arguments are often rather uninformed because you haven't experienced the current American system (let alone the systems of the other countries you decry). When you repeat talking points like how England has wait times, it shows that you've never needed a specialist in the US. If you had, you'd know about the wait times here.


What this debate needs _across the board_ is for people to take a deep breath, stop listening to pundits and talk radio hosts who have their own agendas, and look at all the facts. The fact that these pundits are talking to people who are largely unknowledgable about the actual state of health care means there is very little pushback to their factual inaccuracies.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-16 07:55:39 and read 1981 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
. Your arguments are often rather uninformed because you haven't experienced the current American system (let alone the systems of the other countries you decry).

I've lived in the United States my entire life. Again, I can read so the experience that some individuals face in some overseas markets does not need to be experienced first hand to understand. Rather than make the argument about me, how about we stick with the system that is the heart of the discussion.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
When you repeat talking points like how England has wait times, it shows that you've never needed a specialist in the US. If you had, you'd know about the wait times here.

I've been to see specialists several times in my life. It never ceases to amaze me how many remote viewers we have on this forum.    Never have I had to wait more than a week, maybe two at the ear doctor. It is not a talking point that the UK has waiting times, or Canada for that matter, it is documented many times over.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
What this debate needs _across the board_ is for people to take a deep breath

Sorry, there is too much of the nations financial stake at risk for that. But you are free to take a break if you feel the need to do so.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-16 07:56:04 and read 1980 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
No, I think you misunderstand my point. Your arguments are often rather uninformed because you haven't experienced the current American system (let alone the systems of the other countries you decry). When you repeat talking points like how England has wait times, it shows that you've never needed a specialist in the US. If you had, you'd know about the wait times here.

B.S. My Wife, Son and Mother in law all use multiple specialist. WIth private insurance they have never had to wait nor ever been denied an operation or medication. Who is the uninformed one here?

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
The fact that these pundits are talking to people who are largely unknowledgable about the actual state of health care means there is very little pushback to their factual inaccuracies.

This is your own political opinion.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-16 10:48:08 and read 1973 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 91):
But with the current system you can choose to go with another provider if you don't like the one your with. Not so when the government is the only game in town

That doesn't have to be the case as there are plenty of universal health care systems where one can shop providers as they please.

Quoting dxing (Reply 93):
It is not a talking point that the UK has waiting times, or Canada for that matter, it is documented many times over.

Yes, but those are not the only two countries with universal health care and not all have atrocious waiting times, which has also been documented.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 94):
WIth private insurance they have never had to wait nor ever been denied an operation or medication.

Gee, that's funny. At work in the past few months alone, I've assisted my boss with helping our clients deny no less than 17 treatment plans for 11 individuals, for things ranging from a simple MRI to 3 months of physical therapy to a lumbar spine operation. And rightly so, as most of the conditions these people want treated are bogus claims and/or their doctors are incompetent.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 94):
This is your own political opinion.

Right, because you've read the non-partisan fact check that has been posted numerous times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 91):
I'd be willing to bet you that for whatever ailment you wish to go see a specialist at that hospital, we can find another hospital with just as good a reputation where the wait won't be that long.

There are few facilities with a reputation like that of UCSF. If you take a look at some in the same league such as Vanderbilt Univ., Univ. of Virginia, the Cleveland Clinic, Johns-Hopkins, Sloan-Kettering, etc, you will find similar wait times for non-critical care.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-16 21:16:11 and read 1948 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 95):
That doesn't have to be the case as there are plenty of universal health care systems where one can shop providers as they please.

But as described in Obama care, that is not the direction we are headed in.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 95):
Yes, but those are not the only two countries with universal health care and not all have atrocious waiting times, which has also been documented.

Unfortunately it is the one our governement seems to lean too.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 95):
you will find similar wait times for non-critical care.

I would disagree with your assumption based on personal experience with my father at the Cleveland Clinic. He had cataracts and after referal from his eye doctor was into see the specialist one week later. His condition was diagnosed and surgery scheduled to place implant lenses. Although this was a number of years ago I remember between the diagnosis and surgery was not more than two weeks.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: Aaron747
Posted 2010-12-16 21:58:40 and read 1945 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 96):
But as described in Obama care, that is not the direction we are headed in.

Fair enough, but I expect rampant dissatisfaction with inability to choose providers among those who go onto the public option - which will have to be remedied. I can't imagine that would be very hard to do as it will benefit everyone but the worst performing physicians.

Quoting dxing (Reply 96):

I would disagree with your assumption based on personal experience with my father at the Cleveland Clinic. He had cataracts and after referal from his eye doctor was into see the specialist one week later. His condition was diagnosed and surgery scheduled to place implant lenses.

I'm not talking about things like cataract surgery though - which can usually be accomplished in less than an hour these days. I'm talking about seeking treatment for more difficult conditions, like renal cell cancers, transient ischemic attacks, spondolyosis, hepatic failure, and congestive heart failure.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-16 23:31:01 and read 1945 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 96):

But as described in Obama care, that is not the direction we are headed in.

Only if you ignore fact.

FACT: you can keep your own health care provider.



Has anyone else noticed lately that to accept Republican ideas requires ignoring facts?
You on the right want to label me leftist, but the fact of the matter is and always has been that I am pro-smart. It is the republican party that has moved away from me, not the other way around.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-16 23:51:33 and read 1940 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 98):
FACT: you can keep your own health care provider.

Fact: The only way that some employers are being able to offer even miminum insuance to their lowest paid workers is if the Obama administration grants them a waiver. Unless the waiver is provided, you don't get to keep your health care provider.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/07insure.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...care-waivers-big-companies-unions/

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-17 00:00:13 and read 1939 times.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 97):
I'm talking about seeking treatment for more difficult conditions, like renal cell cancers, transient ischemic attacks, spondolyosis, hepatic failure, and congestive heart failure.

I'm still betting that you could get in far faster to see the person you need to see than you think, and much faster than in some other health care systems. If our system was nationlized it would only lead to longer wait times and poorer service in my opinion since there would be absolutely no value in speeding things up or working any harder.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: D L X
Posted 2010-12-17 07:50:16 and read 1927 times.

Quoting dxing (Reply 99):
Fact: The only way that some employers are being able to offer even miminum insuance to their lowest paid workers is if the Obama administration grants them a waiver.

Your health care should not be tied to your employer anyway. That's a crippling connection.

Can you imagine if your car insurance was tied to your employer?

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: seb146
Posted 2010-12-17 08:47:59 and read 1925 times.

Two problems I have with this:

1. In the title of the thread "First Round Goes To States" should be changed to "First Round Goes To Corporations."

2. If/when this health care mandate is repealed and a surplus comes up, it will probably be the right wing who takes the credit and spends it on crazy stuff we don't need and will not help the American middle class. Like repealing "death tax" or giving tax breaks to large corporations.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: dxing
Posted 2010-12-17 11:06:33 and read 1920 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 101):
Your health care should not be tied to your employer anyway.

Different argument.

Topic: RE: Health Care Mandate, First Round Goes To States.
Username: windy95
Posted 2010-12-17 11:38:20 and read 1912 times.

Quoting D L X (Reply 101):
Your health care should not be tied to your employer anyway. That's a crippling connection.

How so?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 95):
Gee, that's funny. At work in the past few months alone, I've assisted my boss with helping our clients deny no less than 17 treatment plans for 11 individuals, for things ranging from a simple MRI to 3 months of physical therapy to a lumbar spine operation

All I was doing with this answer was responding to DLX's claim of

Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
Your arguments are often rather uninformed because you haven't experienced the current American system
Quoting D L X (Reply 92):
it shows that you've never needed a specialist in the US. If you had, you'd know about the wait times here.

Which in my thirty years of using private insurance I have never seen anything denied nor have we had to wait for a specialist of ank kind. My wife, son and Mother have all used numerous specialist for various different types of problems.

The only time I had been disatisfied with my healtcare was my 6 years of government run healtcare in the Air Force. All of which was a bad experience. Waits, bad service and denial of care.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/