Oh Barry wrote:
The whole damn thing is VOID. This is going to the US Supreme Court, folks. Congress cannot force individuals to buy something. It doesn't matter what it is. The Constitution does not permit this. Ok, liberals fire away.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_1
Its important to remember that this was NOT a jury verdict, but the decision of a single judge.
what you said wrote:
eb white wrote:if obama really were concerned with trying to fix the system, he would have addressed at least some of the enormous problems with it (eg, tort reform or allowing insurance companies to operate outside of a single state).
aett wrote:
Tort reform sounds great, but it is a pretty small cost of healthcare.
Whenever someone references tort reform as an "enormous problem" I know they have no clue. Please consider "eb white" to be uniformed on the subject of health care reform.
sounds like someone who works at a slip-and-fall law firm. what part of the billions of dollars of wasteful testing that is done to pad the files in case of getting sued do you find not to be a problem. also, someone = singular (not plural).
eb white wrote:
sounds like someone who works at a slip-and-fall law firm. what part of the billions of dollars of wasteful testing that is done to pad the files in case of getting sued do you find not to be a problem. also, someone = singular (not plural).
Um.......what?
So the one response I got asking why people do not want health insurance to be mandatory was an objection to too many people being covered.
eb white wrote:
do you think you get better or worse care when (1) 40 million non-paying people get added to the system and clog it up
Of course the question was about adding "paying" people to the system.
eb white wrote:
have you talked to someone who actually has to use the health are you praise so much? it sucks across the board. how long do you think it takes to get an mri in canada?
1 day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXkB64Ss5XkX-Runner wrote:
So the one response I got asking why people do not want health insurance to be mandatory was an objection to too many people being covered.
eb white wrote:do you think you get better or worse care when (1) 40 million non-paying people get added to the system and clog it up
Of course the question was about adding "paying" people to the system.
well your obamacare, as it stands, is going to add millions on people who AREN'T going to pay. you asked why people don't want mandatory health insurance and i told you -- it will mean much worse and much more expensive coverage for those who already pay for insurance. what part of that do you not understand?
Healthcare, along with many other seemingly unrelated topics have been heavily politicized here in the US. Healthcare is not seen as healthcare by a large political minority in this country, but as a socialist plot by the liberals to ruin our great nation by converting it to Europe. It's also seen as a hand out to lazy people that don't work (i.e. minorities). This in not just some general knee-jerk reaction, but one that is formulated and reinforced daily by strategists and media outlets. That is why there is less of a debate about merits and pitfalls but instead seen as more of a doomsday scenario that must be stopped at all costs.
Amazed wrote:
You guys DO realize that the rest of the civilized world manages to provide it's citizens with the kind of healthcare that your President is proposing?
Outside the US, iits entirely normal for Governments to supply universal healthcare.
Like your bizarre fondness for guns and evangelical Christianity, I guess its just one of those things that makes the US unique.
But honestly guys: revamping your healthcare system to one that actually works for most of your citizens won't make the sky fall down.
MagnumRunner wrote:
I suppose making people pay for car insurance in order to drive is unconstitutional too.
This is irrelevant.
Mandatory auto insurance laws are set by individual states.
The case in question is a ruling on the Federal Government's right to pass a mandatory health insurance law under the US Constitution.
A state may pass mandatory insurance laws as it sees fit and Federal Courts have no say in the matter.
X-Runner wrote:
So the one response I got asking why people do not want health insurance to be mandatory was an objection to too many people being covered.
Maybe from other people. My answer is that it takes away freedom from people.
Doctors take an oath that they will assist all, no matter the ability to pay.I Know Better wrote:
rrrffsdsdd wrote:doctors have no right to refuse health care to those who can't afford it
that is tantamount to murder
"Society" has no right to force doctors to do anything they don't want to do. That is tantamount to extortion.
eb white wrote:
have you talked to someone who actually has to use the health are you praise so much? it sucks across the board. how long do you think it takes to get an mri in canada? how long do you think it takes to get the same mri in the usa? if all of the health care systems in other countries are so great, how come you never hear of americans flying off to other countries to get treated but people fly here from all over the world to get treated? our system is far too expensive but it provides the best care.
Unlike conservatives who take one or two anecdotal cases use that as a basis for public policy, I've actually spent quit a bit of time talking directly with people in Europe who are quite pleased with their health care system. I worked in Switzerland for a few months with people from Switzerland, France, and Germany. The vast majority were very happy with their plans. Sure there were people that didn't like some aspects, but it wasn't like there was any mass dissatisfaction. All three countries have a base program paid for through tax dollars and the option to purchase options for enhanced coverage; for example one colleague has a daughter in gymnastics and wanted specialized physical therapy.
The whole "Canada health problem" is a red herring tossed around by conservatives who get all their information from talk radio and Fox News instead of factual sources. Intelligent and informed people know that while the Canadian health care system does have funding issues it's not a debacle and is frankly much more efficient at delivering services than the US system.
As far as medical tourism, average people from other countries are not coming to the US for treatment. Wealthy people from other countries are coming to the US for treatment. Average people from the US are going to Mexico, India, and European countries. A friend on mine who was uninsured found it was cheaper to fly to London, spend a week in a hotel, and fly back than it was to get treated in the US. I've had other friends who've received excellent, prompt, and inexpensive care when they've been injured in accidents in Europe.
There is also no solid evidence the US consistently provides the best care. Surely for those that can afford it it provides the most prompt care. Most studies that look at the success rate of care rank the US somewhere around 20 to 25, not anywhere close to #1.
The issue at the core of the court decisions, the individual mandate, is key to cost reduction because it gets health care providers out of the business of cost shifting. No one is a position of responsibility is talking about denying care and without the individual mandate people will not buy insurance until they're sick. We throw out the mandate and we have to throw out the requirement that insurance companies provide coverage. The obvious solutions are either bring back the public option or go to a single payer system but neither of those are agreeable to conservatives either.
So the mandate is originally a conservative idea that liberals didn't like but agreed to as a compromise to get the insurance companies on board. Conservatives, who consider compromise the equivalent of get their dicks slammed with a hammer, reversed course and started fighting their own idea in order to kill the health care bill.
This whole thing has nothing to do with improving health care or constitutionality or the deficit. Conservatives want only one thing, power, and they are willing to do anything no matter how intellectually dishonest to get it. They didn't care about the deficit when they were in power, they didn't care about the constitutionality of the mandate when they proposed it, and they only proposed solutions to health care issues when it suited their corrupt constituency. Most of the "solutions" were really poison pills aimed at maintaining the profitable status quo.
Keith Stone wrote:
eb white wrote:have you talked to someone who actually has to use the health are you praise so much? it sucks across the board. how long do you think it takes to get an mri in canada? how long do you think it takes to get the same mri in the usa? if all of the health care systems in other countries are so great, how come you never hear of americans flying off to other countries to get treated but people fly here from all over the world to get treated? our system is far too expensive but it provides the best care.
Unlike conservatives who take one or two anecdotal cases use that as a basis for public policy, I've actually spent quit a bit of time talking directly with people in Europe who are quite pleased with their health care system. I worked in Switzerland for a few months with people from Switzerland, France, and Germany. The vast majority were very happy with their plans. Sure there were people that didn't like some aspects, but it wasn't like there was any mass dissatisfaction. All three countries have a base program paid for through tax dollars and the option to purchase options for enhanced coverage; for example one colleague has a daughter in gymnastics and wanted specialized physical therapy.
The whole "Canada health problem" is a red herring tossed around by conservatives who get all their information from talk radio and Fox News instead of factual sources. Intelligent and informed people know that while the Canadian health care system does have funding issues it's not a debacle and is frankly much more efficient at delivering services than the US system.
As far as medical tourism, average people from other countries are not coming to the US for treatment. Wealthy people from other countries are coming to the US for treatment. Average people from the US are going to Mexico, India, and European countries. A friend on mine who was uninsured found it was cheaper to fly to London, spend a week in a hotel, and fly back than it was to get treated in the US. I've had other friends who've received excellent, prompt, and inexpensive care when they've been injured in accidents in Europe.
There is also no solid evidence the US consistently provides the best care. Surely for those that can afford it it provides the most prompt care. Most studies that look at the success rate of care rank the US somewhere around 20 to 25, not anywhere close to #1.
The issue at the core of the court decisions, the individual mandate, is key to cost reduction because it gets health care providers out of the business of cost shifting. No one is a position of responsibility is talking about denying care and without the individual mandate people will not buy insurance until they're sick. We throw out the mandate and we have to throw out the requirement that insurance companies provide coverage. The obvious solutions are either bring back the public option or go to a single payer system but neither of those are agreeable to conservatives either.
So the mandate is originally a conservative idea that liberals didn't like but agreed to as a compromise to get the insurance companies on board. Conservatives, who consider compromise the equivalent of get their dicks slammed with a hammer, reversed course and started fighting their own idea in order to kill the health care bill.
This whole thing has nothing to do with improving health care or constitutionality or the deficit. Conservatives want only one thing, power, and they are willing to do anything no matter how intellectually dishonest to get it. They didn't care about the deficit when they were in power, they didn't care about the constitutionality of the mandate when they proposed it, and they only proposed solutions to health care issues when it suited their corrupt constituency. Most of the "solutions" were really poison pills aimed at maintaining the profitable status quo.
THIS IS THE MOST HYPOCRITICAL POST ON letsrun OF ALL TIME.
what was dat? wrote:
Doctors take an oath that they will assist all, no matter the ability to pay.
Again, really, in the same thread?
The Hippocratic Oath is a ceremonial part of graduation from medical school. Some medical schools do not require it. Some use alternative oaths. If they use the original version then the physician candidate must swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses. They also must promise never to perform surgery (this was the province of barbers and other practitioners, not doctors) and never to give medication to induce an abortion, among other nonesense.
Medical schools that do use the oath use a modified form. There are many, many modified forms of the oath that have been used over the years. None of the 4 popular versions that I looked at have anything to say about treating people regardless of their aility to pay.
Regardless, the administration of the Oath has nothing at all to do with law, it is purely ceremonial. Doctors are not required to treat anybody regardless of ability to pay except for in specific circumstances like emergent conditions in the ER, as outlined in EMTALA and the associated regulations (even these are not required but are part of a hospital taking Medicaid, Medicare funds, so a hospital that theoretically opted out of government sponsored programs would not even have to do that--I believe this only applies to a few specialty hospitals that do not charge at all for services like a few Children's hospitals). Primary care physicians do not have to treat anybody. OB/GYN do not have to treat anybody in their office, specialists do not have to treat anybody in their office. It is only in the context of emergency room treatment and emergent conditions that care is mandated. This is mandated under EMTALA, not by the hippocratic oath.
By continuing to talk about the hippocratic oath as anything other than it actually is you make yourself appear intellecutally lazy and undercut any credibility you may have on the subject of health care and health care reform. Please stop.
Know your facts wrote:
Its important to remember that this was NOT a jury verdict, but the decision of a single judge.
Juries don't decide issues of constitutionality so your point about a jury verdict is pointless. You are correct that this won't be decided by a single judge (unless your view is that it will come down to Justice Kennedy, which may be likely).
Amazed wrote:
You guys DO realize that the rest of the civilized world manages to provide it's citizens with the kind of healthcare that your President is proposing?
Outside the US, iits entirely normal for Governments to supply universal healthcare.
Like your bizarre fondness for guns and evangelical Christianity, I guess its just one of those things that makes the US unique.
But honestly guys: revamping your healthcare system to one that actually works for most of your citizens won't make the sky fall down.
Do other countries require their citizen's to purchase health insurance?
Are any other countries governed by the US Constitution?
The judge in this case didn't rule that the government providing health care was illegal, or even a bad idea. He ruled that Congress does not have the authority to require citizen's to purchase health insurance.
If taxing for health care is unconstitutional, are all federal taxes then unconstitutional? Seriously.
I have a question wrote:
If taxing for health care is unconstitutional, are all federal taxes then unconstitutional? Seriously.
The judge rejected the argument that the penalties for not having health insurance were a tax. You can disagree with his finding of fact, but what you're doing above is pretending he agrees with your view that it's a tax and then carrying the point to other federal taxes.
The direct question was about making people pay for it.
Most of the new people paying in will be young and healthy, making it less expensive.
um sorry eb white...the PALINS actually flew off to another country(well drove) to take advantage of their healthcare - Canadas'. Just like all the other tea party whackos who passed history/american history/government with their c average and think they know it all. Know before talking.
It takes away freedom from people is a legitimate response to oppose this.
"Freedom" is a pretty generic term and there are plenty of things we are not free to do.
And there are many things that are mandatory to pay.
When I was in my twenties I did not have insurance and this law would make it tough on me.
I want to know if the opposition are concerned for this type of person.