Supreme Court health care arguments under way

Misterveritis said:

This is unfair. You have driven me to two likes just this evening. How shall I continue to dislike you in the face of all this reasonable argumentation?

Click to expand...

Well you could always tell yourself that even a clock is right twice a day. :mrgreen: :lamo

Kal'Stang said:

Reimbursement by the government is in a way "insurance". The hospital get paid right? Through "reimbursement"? So why is it that if they are getting paid, whether its through the government, the insurance company, or the individual, that all of a sudden its "driving the price of healthcare up" so bad that they need the government to set up this monstrosity of a bill? If they're getting paid then how is it that they can claim that they are not getting paid? Easy of course...just blame it on the individuals that don't pay and ignore that they do get paid by the government. Of course this is also not counting the fact that hospitals/collection agencies sue the crap out of those that don't pay and then they lose everything in order for it to get paid. So what? Are they getting twice the money now? The government "reimbursement" AND the law suit?

And yes, government reimbursement by the government is a form of government benefit. For the simple fact that without that reimbursement then the hospital wouldn't get paid at all unless of course they sued the person oweing them.

The government buying an F-22 does not equal reimbursing a hospital. Horrible analogy there Dan.

Click to expand...

First, the amount of unpaid-for health care (which is actually covered by those of us who pay for insurance) is hardly inconsequential. I believe someone quoted a figure of $135 billion a year? In fact, that's almost equal to half of the entire U.S. Medicaid budget.

Second, the problem isn't that the uninsured are driving up the cost of health care. The problem is that they are driving up the cost of health INSURANCE for those of us who are responsible and provide for our own health care needs. Essentially, Republicans are arguing for the right of freeloaders to shirk their responsibility and foist off their expenses on those who do take personal responsibility for their own health care needs.

Kal'Stang said:

Reimbursement by the government is in a way "insurance". The hospital get paid right? Through "reimbursement"? So why is it that if they are getting paid, whether its through the government, the insurance company, or the individual, that all of a sudden its "driving the price of healthcare up" so bad that they need the government to set up this monstrosity of a bill? If they're getting paid then how is it that they can claim that they are not getting paid? Easy of course...just blame it on the individuals that don't pay and ignore that they do get paid by the government. Of course this is also not counting the fact that hospitals/collection agencies sue the crap out of those that don't pay and then they lose everything in order for it to get paid. So what? Are they getting twice the money now? The government "reimbursement" AND the law suit?

And yes, government reimbursement by the government is a form of government benefit. For the simple fact that without that reimbursement then the hospital wouldn't get paid at all unless of course they sued the person oweing them.

Click to expand...

See, I knew this was going to cause confusion. :doh You know what? If the government DID reimburse hospitals for deadbeats without insurance then as far as I'm concerned there wouldn't be as much of an issue. Why don't you make that happen and solve half our problem???

The government classifies a hospital as "government supported" if the hospital gets any money at all from Uncle Sam. This means if the hospital treats Medicare/Medicaid patients then the hospital is "government supported". It does NOT mean that the government pays for the low-life deadbeat that can afford insurance but won't buy it, then gets sick or injured and can't pay their bill.

Like any good business the hospital passes that loss on to it's other customers, so the other people in the system end up paying for the deadbeat asshat who was betting - with MY money - that he wouldn't get sick or hurt.

Kal'Stang said:

The government buying an F-22 does not equal reimbursing a hospital. Horrible analogy there Dan.

Click to expand...

Why?

AdamT said:

First, the amount of unpaid-for health care (which is actually covered by those of us who pay for insurance) is hardly inconsequential. I believe someone quoted a figure of $135 billion a year? In fact, that's almost equal to half of the entire U.S. Medicaid budget.

Second, the problem isn't that the uninsured are driving up the cost of health care. The problem is that they are driving up the cost of health INSURANCE for those of us who are responsible and provide for our own health care needs. Essentially, Republicans are arguing for the right of freeloaders to shirk their responsibility and foist off their expenses on those who do take personal responsibility for their own health care needs.

Click to expand...

Further I would like to add how does one expect a sick person to take care of themeselves? Hello they are sick! They are not going to pay an insurance premium much less have a job.

winston53660 said:

Further I would like to add how does one expect a sick person to take care of themeselves? Hello they are sick! They are not going to pay an insurance premium much less have a job.

Click to expand...

And further to that, ER care is just that -- emergency care. If an uninsured person comes in suffering from nausea and vomiting due to metastatic breast cancer, they will give her something for the nausea and vomiting, but they aren't going to admit her and pay for surgery, radiation and chemo.

AdamT said:

First, the amount of unpaid-for health care (which is actually covered by those of us who pay for insurance) is hardly inconsequential. I believe someone quoted a figure of $135 billion a year? In fact, that's almost equal to half of the entire U.S. Medicaid budget.

Click to expand...

Which as I recall was pointed out it also included things like illegal immigrants...something which this bill does not address.

AdamT said:

Second, the problem isn't that the uninsured are driving up the cost of health care. The problem is that they are driving up the cost of health INSURANCE for those of us who are responsible and provide for our own health care needs. Essentially, Republicans are arguing for the right of freeloaders to shirk their responsibility and foist off their expenses on those who do take personal responsibility for their own health care needs.

Click to expand...

Funny, I could have sworn that those defending this bill were basically saying that its basically the same thing? That we can no longer afford to seperate HC insurance from that of Health care because they were "so intertwined"?

But hey if you want to go that route thats fine. How are they driving up your health insurance costs? Since you are seperating healthcare insurance from that of actual healthcare then you cannot possibly say that them not participating is driving up your costs for the simple fact that the uninsured have absolutely nothing to do with health insurance.

Also, please drop the whole "those of us who are responsible" BS. Believe it or not it is those high health insurance costs that often prevent people from getting health insurance. Believe it or not no one actually says "Well, I feel like i'm healthy enough that I don't need health insurance so lets put it off!". They actually say "Well, I've got this bill and this bill and this bill and this bill to pay and unfortenately I barely make enough to cover those expenses so I guess I'm just going to have to put off getting health insurance until I am more financially set and can afford it". And then there are those that just downright cannot afford no matter how hard they try. This whole talk of "i'm more responsible than X class of people" makes me want to puke. Pure elitest crap.

Kal'Stang said:

Which as I recall was pointed out it also included things like illegal immigrants...something which this bill does not address.

Click to expand...

Regardless, it is still tens of billions of dollars a year.

Funny, I could have sworn that those defending this bill were basically saying that its basically the same thing? That we can no longer afford to seperate HC insurance from that of Health care because they were "so intertwined"?

Click to expand...

You're mixing apples and oranges. The mandate addresses a problem with health insurance costs. Other measures that would help those who can't afford insurance to obtain it address health care itself.

But hey if you want to go that route thats fine. How are they driving up your health insurance costs? Since you are seperating healthcare insurance from that of actual healthcare then you cannot possibly say that them not participating is driving up your costs for the simple fact that the uninsured have absolutely nothing to do with health insurance.

Click to expand...

That is simply illogical. Again -- there is more than one aspect to this thing. With respect to costs, health insurance premiums are based on probabilities. If you have a bunch of younger, healthier people who decide to shoot the dice and hope they don't sick or injured, it increases the risk level in the pool of people who do buy insurance. The higher the risk level, the higher the cost. Now, if you prevent insurance companies from rejecting folks on the basis of preexisting condition, and you have no mechanism to incent people to buy insurance, then it follows that you will have a lot of people who won't buy insurance until they actually need it. Of course that's more like theft than insurance. Imagine what would happen if you weren't required to buy auto insurance, but you could go sign up for a policy AFTER you've wrecked your car.

So the insurers set prices based upon the risk pool, but they also have to estimate their costs. Ucompensated care also drives up costs, which in turn drives up premiums. Here's how it works: the hospital knows that it will be on the hook for X amount of ER care per year because they are not allowed to deny treatment to people who can't pay. So what does the hospital do? It increases it's prices across the board in order to make up for the cost of the uncompensated care. Insurance companies pay those inflated prices and pass the costs on to their insureds.

Also, please drop the whole "those of us who are responsible" BS. Believe it or not it is those high health insurance costs that often prevent people from getting health insurance.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why AHCA only requires people who can afford health insurance to buy health insurance. It provides subsidies for those who can't afford it so they can afford it.

Believe it or not no one actually says "Well, I feel like i'm healthy enough that I don't need health insurance so lets put it off!". They actually say "Well, I've got this bill and this bill and this bill and this bill to pay and unfortenately I barely make enough to cover those expenses so I guess I'm just going to have to put off getting health insurance until I am more financially set and can afford it". And then there are those that just downright cannot afford no matter how hard they try. This whole talk of "i'm more responsible than X class of people" makes me want to puke. Pure elitest crap.

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who could afford insurance but who choose not to buy it because they'd rather drive a fancy truck or live in a fancy apartment. Again, AHCA helps those who legitimately can't afford insurance to buy insurance.

j-mac said:

Only comparable if HC is kicked back to the states where it belongs.


j-mac

Click to expand...

I wish more of those who oppose current reform made that type os argument in a coherent way. I would be inclined to allow states to address it. My only concern is that largely, with all the years and opportunities the states have had, it largely has not been handled. I think in a reasonable argument a case for it being a national problem and not just a state problem can be made. A case can be made both ways. But what I really doubt is that either side will stop silliness long enough to have a productive, reasoned and civil discussion about this.

Let the leftist, communist, facist, socialist, granny killing, greedy, hateful discourse that has become our way begin!!!!

Kal'Stang said:

The reason that I put "" is because you could point to any of them and my statement would be true.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about any country in this thread. We are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court and their decision so the inference seems apparent and wrong.

I found this pretty funny. LOL.

If Massachusetts can pass a health care plan, why can't voters in the other forty nine states lobby their state representatives to follow suit?

Blue Dog said:

If Massachusetts can pass a health care plan, why can't voters in the other forty nine states lobby their state representatives to follow suit?

Click to expand...

Because they are lazy and think it's the federal governments job.

If they would have gone that route it would have saved all this debate, and they might already have it.

Blue Dog said:

If Massachusetts can pass a health care plan, why can't voters in the other forty nine states lobby their state representatives to follow suit?

Click to expand...

Arbo said:

If they would have gone that route it would have saved all this debate, and they might already have it.

Click to expand...

Originally it was UHC, not this whacked out, pieced together pile of junk we have now. Had we gone the UHC route there wouldn't be an issue now, either.

AdamT said:

Regardless, it is still tens of billions of dollars a year.

Click to expand...

And how much more do all the regulations and law suits cost a year? I would bet that they cost hospitals far more.

AdamT said:

You're mixing apples and oranges. The mandate addresses a problem with health insurance costs. Other measures that would help those who can't afford insurance to obtain it address health care itself.

That is simply illogical. Again -- there is more than one aspect to this thing. With respect to costs, health insurance premiums are based on probabilities. If you have a bunch of younger, healthier people who decide to shoot the dice and hope they don't sick or injured, it increases the risk level in the pool of people who do buy insurance. The higher the risk level, the higher the cost. Now, if you prevent insurance companies from rejecting folks on the basis of preexisting condition, and you have no mechanism to incent people to buy insurance, then it follows that you will have a lot of people who won't buy insurance until they actually need it. Of course that's more like theft than insurance. Imagine what would happen if you weren't required to buy auto insurance, but you could go sign up for a policy AFTER you've wrecked your car.

So the insurers set prices based upon the risk pool, but they also have to estimate their costs. Ucompensated care also drives up costs, which in turn drives up premiums. Here's how it works: the hospital knows that it will be on the hook for X amount of ER care per year because they are not allowed to deny treatment to people who can't pay. So what does the hospital do? It increases it's prices across the board in order to make up for the cost of the uncompensated care. Insurance companies pay those inflated prices and pass the costs on to their insureds.

Click to expand...

Isn't the mandate suppose to lower insurance costs which would also help those that can't afford it to obtain it and healthcare? You seem to be jumping around an aweful lot here. Either the mandate is for both healthcare and insurance or it is just for insurance...which is it?

AdamT said:

Yes, and that's why AHCA only requires people who can afford health insurance to buy health insurance. It provides subsidies for those who can't afford it so they can afford it.

Click to expand...

And who determines what people can afford and not afford? The government of course. Now no doubt it would be based off of a system like foodstamps or such. You make X amount of dollars you get FS. You make Y amount of of dollars and you don't get FS. All based on your gross amount of income of course. Do you know the flaw in that? It does not take into how much is taken out due to taxes and it also does not take into account other bills that are necessities, such as a roof over your head, a car to get to work, food, clothing, car insurance, etc etc. In otherwords there are always going to be people that will fall in that grey area where they don't qualify for federal assitance but at the same time can't afford health insurance. Then what?

AdamT said:

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who could afford insurance but who choose not to buy it because they'd rather drive a fancy truck or live in a fancy apartment. Again, AHCA helps those who legitimately can't afford insurance to buy insurance.

Click to expand...

And here we go again, class warfare. X person is living in this nice fancy apartment! We can't have that! Find ways to make them pay more!!! Forget about the fact that they may not even need insurance for years to come...make em buy it anyways!

jambalaya said:

We are not talking about any country in this thread. We are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court and their decision so the inference seems apparent and wrong.

Click to expand...

Well now if you had kept up with the rest of the conversation that those posts respond to you would know what it was talking about and how it relates.

winston53660 said:

I happen to have a great appreciation for the National Institutes of Health. Much of the research they have done and funded has contributed to the betterment of my quality of life as well as millions of others. And in turn I'm willing to bet people that have benefitted from the NIH endeavors have also contributed to your quality of life in a positive way.

Click to expand...

Do you think that NIH is in the health care business?

They sound kinda researchy to me.

MoSurveyor said:

Sure! I agree to disagree with short-sighted people all the time, so why not you, too?

Click to expand...

Perfect. The foolish and the short-sighted agree to disagree. What could be better?

MoSurveyor said:

jabberwocky

Click to expand...

Why do you believe someone should have his neighbors pay for something he or she wants?

AdamT said:

I can absolutely see you trying to divert attention from the fact that Reagan signed the universal health care law. :lol:

Click to expand...

Reagan made a few mistakes. If he signed it and we have it why do we need this monster? Kill it before it spawns tyranny.

Blue Dog said:

If Massachusetts can pass a health care plan, why can't voters in the other forty nine states lobby their state representatives to follow suit?

Click to expand...

Other states have tried, and failed. I have heard that California tried 3 times in in the past 10-12 years with no success. People just don't want the mandate straight up.

Blue Dog said:

If Massachusetts can pass a health care plan, why can't voters in the other forty nine states lobby their state representatives to follow suit?

Click to expand...

I can think of no reason why they can't. But they haven't.

Kal'Stang said:

Other states have tried, and failed. I have heard that California tried 3 times in in the past 10-12 years with no success. People just don't want the mandate straight up.

Click to expand...

Which is yet another reason we should just go single-payer.

j-mac said:

Only comparable if HC is kicked back to the states where it belongs.


j-mac

Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree with you; but how sure are we that the states are going to deliver a uniform system that will treat all needs. I think we should build a top notch health system in this country; one that's completely accessable to every American (a cadillac in every household). We can do that very easily if that's what we want to do.

Misterveritis said:

Why do you believe someone should have his neighbors pay for something he or she wants?

Click to expand...

jabberwocky

jet57 said:

I wouldn't disagree with you; but how sure are we that the states are going to deliver a uniform system that will treat all needs.

Click to expand...

It's up to them. People can decided for themselves what they want, and if their community doesn't offer that, then they can move. This country is built on freedom, not conformity to some standard of uniformity that a bureaucrat arbitrarily decides is proper for all.

I think we should build a top notch health system in this country; one that's completely accessable to every American

Click to expand...

We have a "top notch health system" that is completely accessible to everyone in this country, and I'll go one better, it is accessible even if you are here illegally.

(a cadillac in every household)

Click to expand...

Why should I pay for your Cadillac? Buy your own.

We can do that very easily if that's what we want to do.

Click to expand...

If it is so easy, then why is Obama failing at it? Oh wait, I know, it's all those damned Conservatives, and TeaPartiers fault....Oh yeah, and Bushhhhhhhhhhhh!


j-mac