• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nelson says he'll support healthcare bill

No, you're not following. It isn't about what they can afford, entirely. It is what it costs others. You have it wrong. The legal premise is the same.

Fifty one.

I apologize for taking your time. You either have zero concept of constitutional law and this discussion with you is far over you head or you are trolling me. I understand you have Democratic leanings, but that should never be an excuse for destroying the intent of our constitution.

I require intellectual capacity and honesty. You have displayed neither. Enjoy the thread....
 
I see no evidence that the other money wasters are primarily from the uninsured.

Just saw this:

It is a simple fact that it is the uninsured who are driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone.

Here are the facts.

In 2005, there were 44.8 million who had no medical insurance. In 2006, that number had grown to 47 million. Presently, it is estimated that there are 50 million who have no coverage, and that number will rise to over 52 million at the end of 2010.

As a former director of a hospital emergency department seeing over 50,000 patients annually, I am very aware of how the medical system works.

Anytime an uninsured person enters a hospital emergency department and registers in, the minute they cross the threshold, the hospital is mandated to (1) evaluate, and (2) make a disposition of the individual.

That disposition may be to: (1) reassure that no treatment is required; (2) provide appropriate treatment; (3) admit to the facility; or (4) make a referral.

If the hospital is unwilling to evaluate and make a disposition, it will lose reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid programs, which is tantamount to financial suicide.

No matter what the ultimate disposition, the hospital incurs costs that are not reimbursed.

Hospitals have huge fixed costs which must be covered in order to operate the facility. Also, hospitals must have available resources to constantly be able to invest in new technologies in order to best provide service for those seeking care.

Thus is set in motion the unrelenting, upward spiral of ever-increasing medical costs.

1. The uninsured numbers are constantly increasing.
2. The unreimbursed expenses incurred by hospitals in treating those ever-increasing numbers of the uninsured are constantly increasing.
3. Hospitals must increase their charges in order to cover the ever-increasing costs of treating the uninsured.
4. Medical insurance companies must increase the premiums of those they insure in order to pay for the increased hospital charges when their insureds seek treatment.
5. Each time insurance premiums increase, another portion of the population opts out of carrying insurance. Individuals or companies reach a point, finally, when they can no longer afford insurance, and individual policyholders or employees of companies which drop their benefits enter into the pool of the uninsured.
6. More uninsured people = increased, unreimbursed hospital costs = increased hospital charges = increased insurance premiums = more uninsured people.... The upward spiral is incessant.

The pressure created by the ever-increasing number of the uninsured is the driving force behind the ever-increasing cost of medical care in the United States. That force is unrelenting. It can only accelerate. It has created a system which is unsustainable.

One ER doc's take on what's driving healthcare costs inexorably higher | Opinion L.A. | Los Angeles Times

Your use of the word primary made me think for a second, can it be significant without being primary? Again, I'm not arguing it is the only problem, but a significant one.
 
Last edited:
Reference to the Government study saying women under 50 do not need to be screened for breast cancer.

That's more specific than what he's talking about. They do not say no one needs routine physicals or preventive care.
 
So..."Driving" is to "Car Insurance", what "Living" is to "Health Insurance"? :lol:
 
For others that may want some added clarity.

The federal government is now going to force private citizens to buy a commodity. This is a first in American history. Before... every purchase was by choice. It is a very dangerous precedent.

Why not force citizens to buy guns for homeland protection?

Why not force citizens to buy electric cars for clean air?

Why not force citizens to by stopping smoking patches for their own health?

Why not force citizens to by jogging shoes to stay healthy?

We should never set the precedent that private citizens are forced to by any private commodity. The government was supposed to answer to us, this is a perverse change that is highly destructive if allowed to happen. For the good of the nation, I hope an honest court receives this case and upholds over 200 years of jurisprudence.
 
Last edited:
So..."Driving" is to "Car Insurance", what "Living" is to "Health Insurance"? :lol:

More like the cost of paying for your accident is to car insurance what making others pay for your care is to health insurance. ;)
 
For others that may want some added clarity.

The federal government is now going to force private citizens to buy a commodity. This is a first in American history. Before... every purchase was by choice. It is a very dangerous precedent.

Why not force citizens to buy guys for homeland protection?

Why not force citizens to buy electric cars for clean air?

Why not force citizens to by stopping smoking patches for their own health?

Why not force citizens to by jogging shoes to stay healthy?

We should never set the precedent that private citizens are forced to by any private commodity. The government was supposed to answer to us, this is a perverse change that is highly destructive if allowed to happen. For the good of the nation, I hope an honest court receives this case and upholds over 200 years of jurisprudence.

Well, do we have to pay others over those things? That is the common thread that the premise for both auto insurance and health insurance is based on.
 
True.

Using the ER as a clinic

More insured and uninsured consumers are getting their primary care in emergency rooms, wasting $14 billion every year in health care spending.

"This is an inappropriate use of the ER," said Dee Swanson, president of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. "You don't go to the ER for strep throat."

Since emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat all patients, Swanson said providers ultimately find ways to pass on the cost for treating the uninsured to other patients, such as to those who pay out-of-pocket for their medical care.

Dees also took issue with consumers who don't get primary care for their diabetes or blood pressure on a timely basis, hence finding themselves in the ER.

"Going to the doctor for strep throat would cost $65-$70. In the ER, it's $600 to $800," he said.

Health care's six money-wasting problems - Aug. 10, 2009

Using the emergency room as a clinic

Because emergency rooms are legally obligated to treat all patients, more insured and uninsured patients are getting their primary care in emergency rooms. An emergency room visit for a routine condition can cost 10 times what the same medical care would cost at an urgent care clinic. Not only are unnecessary emergency room visits a waste of medical resources, many uninsured patients cannot or do not pay their emergency room bills, and medical providers ultimately find ways to pass on the costs to insured patients and uninsured patients who do pay out-of-pocket.

Health-Care Dollars down the Drain


However, this does seem like something that is self evident. Nothing is free. Cost has to be made up somehow.

Just a note about this. I know the above is a problem but having the gov't in charge doesn't necessarily solve the problem. My family and I use the Emergency Room more *BECAUSE* we have government health care (my husband is in the military). Gov't doctors work shorter hours and don't have an answering service for after hours or weekend calls. You're told to go to the ER. Well, there is a dial-a-nurse but due to legal reasons they no longer can give much useful advice. Most of it is stuff you can figure out yourself reading a Tylenol bottle, for example, so you're on your own if your kid has a high fever or something. I've had those dial-a-nurses say, "well, can't you call your doctor?" and I have to say "No, we're military". They're sympathetic but it doesn't really help. It was the same when we were stationed in Germany and used their health care system :shrug: Gov't run health care is gov't run health care no matter where you are, imo.

We're currently stationed in a town too small for a military clinic and are using a civilian/non-gov't clinic and it is like heaven compared to what we are used to. So, no ER visits :) Much longer hours at the clinic and the people treat us so much better. I'm going to be sad if the gov't takes over more of this country's health care. Bad things happen when the gov't is in charge. That has been my experience for the past 16+ years, FWIW.
 
Your use of the word primary made me think for a second, can it be significant without being primary? Again, I'm not arguing it is the only problem, but a significant one.



Why Are Health Costs Rising?

March 15, 2007 | Author: Devon Herrick

Testimony for Submission to the
House Education & Labor Subcommittee on
Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions
Insurance Coverage for the Uninsured
Hearing held on March 15, 2007

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, please accept my comments for the record regarding the March 15, 2007, hearing about providing health insurance for the uninsured. My comments focus specifically on the issue of health care prices. As was pointed out by many of the witnesses during the hearing, the price of health care is a significant issue to consider as the Subcommittee discusses health care reform.

Prices for medical services have been rising faster than prices of other goods and services for as long as anyone can remember. But the Subcommittee should consider that not all health care prices are rising. Although health care inflation is robust for those services paid by third-party insurance, prices are rising only moderately for services patients buy directly. For example, the real (inflation-adjusted) price of cosmetic surgery fell over the past decade - despite a huge increase in demand and considerable innovation.

Health Care Costs Rise When Others Pay. A primary reason why health care costs are soaring is that most of the time when people enter the medical marketplace, they are spending someone else's money. When patients pay their own medical bills, they are conservative consumers. Economic studies and common sense confirm that people are less likely to be prudent, careful shoppers if someone else is picking up the tab. Thus, the increase in spending has occurred because third parties - employers, insurance companies or government - pay almost all the bills.

The Extent of Third-Party Payment of Medical Bills. Although polls show that many people fear they will not be able to pay their medical bills from their own resources, the reality is that most people pay for only a small portion of their medical care:

For every $1 worth of hospital care consumed, the patient pays only about three cents out of pocket, on the average; 97 cents is paid by a third party.
For every $1 worth of physician services consumed, the patient pays less than 10 cents out of pocket, on the average.
For the health care system as a whole, every time patients consume $1 in services, they pay only 14 cents out of pocket.
Thus, from an economic point of view, the incentive for patients is to consume hospital services until they are worth only three cents on the dollar, on the average. The incentive is to consume physicians' services until they are worth only 10 cents on the dollar. And for the health care system as a whole, patients have an incentive to utilize everything modern medicine offers until the value to them is only 14 cents out of the last dollar spent.

Medical Inflation. Health care costs over the past 40 years have risen as the proportion of health care paid for by third parties has increased. Prior to the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health care spending never exceeded 6 percent of gross domestic product. Today it is 16 percent. These two government programs unleashed a torrent of new spending and led to rising health care prices. For instance, a recent study by Amy Finkelstein of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that half the growth in health care expenditures was due to Medicare. There has also been an increase in tax-subsidized employer spending on health care. These two factors, rather than the cost of new technology and drugs, explain why health care costs outpace inflation.


------------------
 
Just a note about this. I know the above is a problem but having the gov't in charge doesn't necessarily solve the problem. My family and I use the Emergency Room more *BECAUSE* we have government health care (my husband is in the military). Gov't doctors work shorter hours and don't have an answering service for after hours or weekend calls. You're told to go to the ER. Well, there is a dial-a-nurse but due to legal reasons they no longer can give much useful advice. Most of it is stuff you can figure out yourself reading a Tylenol bottle, for example, so you're on your own if your kid has a high fever or something. I've had those dial-a-nurses say, "well, can't you call your doctor?" and I have to say "No, we're military". They're sympathetic but it doesn't really help. It was the same when we were stationed in Germany and used their health care system :shrug: Gov't run health care is gov't run health care no matter where you are, imo.

We're currently stationed in a town too small for a military clinic and are using a civilian/non-gov't clinic and it is like heaven compared to what we are used to. So, no ER visits :) Much longer hours at the clinic and the people treat us so much better. I'm going to be sad if the gov't takes over more of this country's health care. Bad things happen when the gov't is in charge. That has been my experience for the past 16+ years, FWIW.

That's a different problem altogether. There are problems with the military that are specific and not related to what we would see outside the military.
 
Well, do we have to pay others over those things? That is the common thread that the premise for both auto insurance and health insurance is based on.

No we do not. I know plenty of people that do not own guns.

You are trolling.

My father does not have to buy auto insurance. Under this law he is forced to buy health insurance. As soon as we do that to one citizen we have subverted the constitution.
 
More like the cost of paying for your accident is to car insurance what making others pay for your care is to health insurance. ;)

How exactly is it that everyone theoretically pays for those without insurance? Is it because these uninsured parties get operations, set the hospitals or doctors back, who then pass on the cost to those who pay for insured people, i.e. the Insurance Companies and Government programs? And is the amount of money lost each year really a significant percentage of all the money made in the health care industry? I mean, I never have heard anyone complain about people stealing health care. Is this because it always gets paid for one way or another?
 
No we do not. I know plenty of people that do not own guns.

You are trolling.

My father does not have to buy auto insurance. Under this law he is forced to buy health insurance. As soon as we do that to one citizen we have subverted the constitution.

OK, you lost me. This makes non sense at all.

He will use the health care system at some point. If he is not independently wealthy, he won't be able to afford it. If he can't afford it, we will pay for it.
 
How exactly is it that everyone theoretically pays for those without insurance? Is it because these uninsured parties get operations, set the hospitals or doctors back, who then pass on the cost to those who pay for insured people, i.e. the Insurance Companies and Government programs? And is the amount of money lost each year really a significant percentage of all the money made in the health care industry? I mean, I never have heard anyone complain about people stealing health care. Is this because it always gets paid for one way or another?

I did address this earlier. If you use a provider and can't pay for it, costs are passed along to those who can pay, either themselves or through your insurance. Also, by not being able to do preventive care, they are sicker and require more, which again is a cost picked up by others.
 
OK, you lost me. This makes non sense at all.

He will use the health care system at some point. If he is not independently wealthy, he won't be able to afford it. If he can't afford it, we will pay for it.

You're a troll. Sorry... I am not biting.

dont_feed_the_trolls.jpg


You are not even clever... as far as trolls go.
 
You're a troll. Sorry... I am not biting.



You are not even clever... as far as trolls go.

I don't follow you. Maybe you just don't want to address the substance. That's fine if that's the case. But at least admit it.
 
I did address this earlier. If you use a provider and can't pay for it, costs are passed along to those who can pay, either themselves or through your insurance. Also, by not being able to do preventive care, they are sicker and require more, which again is a cost picked up by others.

So requiring people to buy health insurance that they can't already afford in the first place solves this?
 
So requiring people to buy health insurance that they can't already afford in the first place solves this?

Well, the public option sure would have made that easier, but there are previsions concerning cost aren't there?
 
Well, the public option sure would have made that easier, but there are previsions concerning cost aren't there?

Wouldn't know. I almost cried when I tried navigating the 2000+ pages. It's all in technical jargon as well so half the time I don't know what the hell is going on in that damn thing.
 
Wouldn't know. I almost cried when I tried navigating the 2000+ pages. It's all in technical jargon as well so half the time I don't know what the hell is going on in that damn thing.

All legislation is written that way. ;)
 
Wouldn't know. I almost cried when I tried navigating the 2000+ pages. It's all in technical jargon as well so half the time I don't know what the hell is going on in that damn thing.

It was written that way for a reason. All the angles, pork, and now unconstitutional measure are buried in a pile of swill.

Consider this; the Medicare Law was 200 pages.

We have let the Washington D.C. politicos run a muck in America.
 
Back
Top Bottom