Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Erod said:

Say bye, bye to the best and brightest going to medical school. A huge percentage of today's doctors would simply refuse to participate, or they'd retire tomorrow.

That would be a catastrophe of the highest order.

Click to expand...

I understand your concerns and attempted to address such in this thread; nonetheless, the only way the federal government controls the health care system is if they control the entirety of the health care system and not just a small fraction of it. In other words, if the government owned hospitals, medical training facilities (i.e., medical universities), and actually paid doctor's salaries AND controlled pharmacuetical companies, I could understand your fears. It's this path towards complete and utter control that has alot of people worried. But fear not. That's not what's happening here with health care reform legislation.

The only thing this bill attempts to do is broaden access to health insurance, set fair and equitable standards in health insurance policies at varying benefit levels, and ensure that everyone receives health care at fair market prices. The fed isn't setting the cost of health care in any way, shape or form. It's just attempting to ensure that those who do have health insurance aren't paying threw the nose for it because the health care industry has manipulated the cost of insurance, treatment services and medicines and made it so expensive that not everyone can get insurance.

Let's keep it in perspective...

Kal'Stang said:

It's very simple to not have auto insurance. Just don't own a car or drive one.

Now, tell me, how exactly am I suppose to not have health insurance?

See the difference? One you can opt out of. The other you cannot. Major differences. One you opt out of. The other you pay for as long as you breath. Major differences.

Sorry, but the car insurance excuse was an ill concieved idea considering you...oh yeah...DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT! Do I have a choice in weather or not I breath? No? Do I have a choice in weather I can drive? Yes.

Click to expand...

Damned good point! That's why I believe the Florida case that struck down the mandate will eventually lose. The judge makes a very good argument concerning "inactivity", but the fact that I don't have any control over what germs may or may not enter my body or whether or not my unborn child may be born with a birth defect or that I may get injured on the job or may lose control of my car on a cold, winter's night and crash into an on-coming car or trip and fall over a rug while walking down the hall or out the door (this actually happened to a coworker of mine recently and her medical bills have sored due to this one injury; she's in her 60's so that does play into it...that old age thingy)...

All of those things and more we just don't have much control over, if any, and are very likely to need medical attention. To me, it's not a just a matter of whether or not I have health insurance. It's "How is the health care and health insurance markets affecting my premiums to pay the cost for those who don't have insurance but still need medical attention/treatment."

Now, in a twisted way the fed is also to blame for this by mandating that private hospitals who accept Medicaid and Medicare can't deny those who have no insurance medical care. Those individuals who don't pay their medical bills are in many ways taking advantage of this "loophole". However, there is a difference between those who simply cannot afford health insurance versus those who purposefully use ERs as their "walk-in clinics". It's the same argument against those who use abortions as a means for birth control only the difference is that young lady's choice to have an abortion doesn't affect my cost of health insurance. While both are individual choices, one affects my bottom line while the other affect my moral compus.

Objective Voice said:

I understand your concerns and attempted to address such in this thread; nonetheless, the only way the federal government controls the health care system is if they control the entirety of the health care system and not just a small fraction of it. In other words, if the government owned hospitals, medical training facilities (i.e., medical universities), and actually paid doctor's salaries AND controlled pharmacuetical companies, I could understand your fears. It's this path towards complete and utter control that has alot of people worried. But fear not. That's not what's happening here with health care reform legislation. The only thing this bill attempts to do is broaden access to health insurance, set fair and equitable standards in health insurance policies at varying benefit levels, and ensure that everyone receives health care at fair market prices. The fed isn't setting the cost of health care in any way, shape or form. It's just attempting to ensure that those who do have health insurance aren't paying threw the nose for it because the health care industry has manipulated the cost of insurance, treatment services and medicines and made it so expensive that not everyone can get insurance.

Let's keep it in perspective...

Click to expand...

But he who controls the money, controls it all.

Do you know how unbelievably hard it is for doctors to collect from medicare for the simplest of things?

How long until they are able to dictate salaries by dictating what doctors can charge?

Erod said:

Say bye, bye to the best and brightest going to medical school. A huge percentage of today's doctors would simply refuse to participate, or they'd retire tomorrow.

That would be a catastrophe of the highest order.

Click to expand...

I talk to doctors a lot, and you're likely wrong about that. Most would accept one as long as it was two teired, meaning that you had a single payer for most, but with the ability to buy more on your own. The wealthy will always do a little better, but we need to make sure all of us have adequate care.

Kal'Stang said:

It's very simple to not have auto insurance. Just don't own a car or drive one.

Now, tell me, how exactly am I suppose to not have health insurance?

See the difference? One you can opt out of. The other you cannot. Major differences. One you opt out of. The other you pay for as long as you breath. Major differences.

Sorry, but the car insurance excuse was an ill concieved idea considering you...oh yeah...DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT! Do I have a choice in weather or not I breath? No? Do I have a choice in weather I can drive? Yes.

Click to expand...

I tried to point this out earlier so you wouldn't go down this path, but your distinction is meaningless. If we could opt out of receiving health care when needed, then you would have a proper comparison and point, but that's not the case. just because you have the option of not driving doesn't mean the it isn't mandatory for reason , or that health care insurance isn't being argued the same way. The only difference, as I stated earlier, is that there is no way to opt out of recieving health care. if you're seriously injuried in an accident, you will recieve care. And if you're not insured, you're unlikely to be able to afford the care you will receive. So, others wil pick it up.

You have to address the actual argument and not pretend it isn't there.

Boo Radley said:

I talk to doctors a lot, and you're likely wrong about that. Most would accept one as long as it was two teired, meaning that you had a single payer for most, but with the ability to buy more on your own. The wealthy will always do a little better, but we need to make sure all of us have adequate care.

Click to expand...

There is no way a private insurance company that has to make a profit can compete with a government agency, which can lose money in droves and just print more.

Insurance companies require large pools of people to hedge itself and remain viable. Most of that comes from employer plans, and most companies would choose just not to offer insurance to their employees at all.

Erod said:

There is no way a private insurance company that has to make a profit can compete with a government agency, which can lose money in droves and just print more.

Insurance companies require large pools of people to hedge itself and remain viable. Most of that comes from employer plans, and most companies would choose just not to offer insurance to their employees at all.

Click to expand...

Not true, but they don't have to. They want well people who won't need their services. Wealthier people fit that criteria the most. They would actually make more profit in a two teired system. And there would be no mandate. It would also remove insurance from the employer and help with international competition, helping the economy.

Erod said:

But he who controls the money, controls it all.

Do you know how unbelievably hard it is for doctors to collect from medicare for the simplest of things?

How long until they are able to dictate salaries by dictating what doctors can charge?

Click to expand...

But that's ONLY for Medicare patients and has nothing to do with those patients who do have health care as acquired via the private sector. Doctors who run private clinics can refuse to see Medicare and Medicaid patients which had already begun before health care legislationo was enacted. However, the new law increases the payout to doctors who see such patients. So, it's a moot point.

Boo Radley said:

Not true, but they don't have to. They want well people who won't need their services. Wealthier people fit that criteria the most. They would actually make more profit in a two teired system. And there would be no mandate. It would also remove insurance from the employer and help with international competition, helping the economy.

Click to expand...

Huh? I must have missed it that wealthy people don't get cancer or have heart attacks or even die. In fact, it's the wealthy that opt for procedure after procedure and end up in a very expensive hospice in the end.

Plus, they cost vastly more to the insurance provider because they are more likely to make their annual checkups and find things to fix. Poor people tend to ignore their health issues even if they have insurance.

Objective Voice said:

But that's ONLY for Medicare patients and has nothing to do with those patients who do have health care as acquired via the private sector. Doctors who run private clinics can refuse to see Medicare and Medicaid patients which had already begun before health care legislationo was enacted. However, the new law increases the payout to doctors who see such patients. So, it's a moot point.

Click to expand...

Basically a public option (which is where this is intended to go, make no mistake) would be Medicare on steroids.

Objective Voice said:

Damned good point! That's why I believe the Florida case that struck down the mandate will eventually lose. The judge makes a very good argument concerning "inactivity", but the fact that I don't have any control over what germs may or may not enter my body or whether or not my unborn child may be born with a birth defect or that I may get injured on the job or may lose control of my car on a cold, winter's night and crash into an on-coming car or trip and fall over a rug while walking down the hall or out the door (this actually happened to a coworker of mine recently and her medical bills have sored due to this one injury; she's in her 60's so that does play into it...that old age thingy)...

All of those things and more we just don't have much control over, if any, and are very likely to need medical attention. To me, it's not a just a matter of whether or not I have health insurance. It's "How is the health care and health insurance markets affecting my premiums to pay the cost for those who don't have insurance but still need medical attention/treatment."

Now, in a twisted way the fed is also to blame for this by mandating that private hospitals who accept Medicaid and Medicare can't deny those who have no insurance medical care. Those individuals who don't pay their medical bills are in many ways taking advantage of this "loophole". However, there is a difference between those who simply cannot afford health insurance versus those who purposefully use ERs as their "walk-in clinics". It's the same argument against those who use abortions as a means for birth control only the difference is that young lady's choice to have an abortion doesn't affect my cost of health insurance. While both are individual choices, one affects my bottom line while the other affect my moral compus.

Click to expand...

So instead of holding the ones that don't pay thier bills responsible you instead want to hold the whole country responsible? That's a bit backwards, don't you think?

Boo Radley said:

I tried to point this out earlier so you wouldn't go down this path, but your distinction is meaningless. If we could opt out of receiving health care when needed, then you would have a proper comparison and point, but that's not the case. just because you have the option of not driving doesn't mean the it isn't mandatory for reason , or that health care insurance isn't being argued the same way. The only difference, as I stated earlier, is that there is no way to opt out of recieving health care. if you're seriously injuried in an accident, you will recieve care. And if you're not insured, you're unlikely to be able to afford the care you will receive. So, others wil pick it up.

You have to address the actual argument and not pretend it isn't there.

Click to expand...

That's the worst excuse for an "actual argument" that I've ever seen.

Name one thing that the federal government requires each man, woman, and child to buy from private companies.

Erod said:

Huh? I must have missed it that wealthy people don't get cancer or have heart attacks or even die. In fact, it's the wealthy that opt for procedure after procedure and end up in a very expensive hospice in the end.

Plus, they cost vastly more to the insurance provider because they are more likely to make their annual checkups and find things to fix. Poor people tend to ignore their health issues even if they have insurance.

Click to expand...

On average they do better than the poor. I never said they never get ill, but do better over all. And they can pay for bigger deductables, and even pay for more on their own.

And no, they don't cost more. Yes, they make those things, but those are cheap comparatively. Poor people ignore largely because they have fewer options.

Gill said:

That's the worst excuse for an "actual argument" that I've ever seen.

Name one thing that the federal government requires each man, woman, and child to buy from private companies.

Click to expand...

You're still ingoring the argument. Who pays if you're hurt and you don't have insurance and can't pay? Answer that if you will.

Erod said:

Basically a public option (which is where this is intended to go, make no mistake) would be Medicare on steroids.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but we ain't there yet...not until the vast majority of this nation's citizens agree that it's far more effective to be taxed for health care coverage/treatment while allowing the private health care system to remain in tact. That's the only way universal health care will ever come into existence here.

Boo Radley said:

You're still ingoring the argument. Who pays if you're hurt and you don't have insurance and can't pay? Answer that if you will.

Click to expand...

I asked you a question first. I won't let you play your usual game of weaseling out of questions you can't or won't answer.

Boo Radley said:

I tried to point this out earlier so you wouldn't go down this path, but your distinction is meaningless. If we could opt out of receiving health care when needed, then you would have a proper comparison and point, but that's not the case. just because you have the option of not driving doesn't mean the it isn't mandatory for reason , or that health care insurance isn't being argued the same way. The only difference, as I stated earlier, is that there is no way to opt out of recieving health care. if you're seriously injuried in an accident, you will recieve care. And if you're not insured, you're unlikely to be able to afford the care you will receive. So, others wil pick it up.

You have to address the actual argument and not pretend it isn't there.

Click to expand...

Umm...you DO have the option of opting out of health care. Who ever said that you didn't? It happens all the time. I don't take my kids to the hospital every time that they get sick. See, you can opt out. I don't go to the hospital every time I'm sick. I'm sure that millions of other people do too.

Gill said:

I asked you a question first. I won't let you play your usual game of weaseling out of questions you can't or won't answer.

Click to expand...

The answer is essential in answering your question. The reason this is argued is because we pay for those who act irresponsible. As I have said, a public option would have been better, and a single payer even better, but let's not lose sight of what is being argued. We have mandatory auot insurance to protect others from the irresponsible drivers who drive uninsured. This is the same rational for having mandatory health insurance. Unless you can opt out by assuring you will never use services you can't pay for, whihc would be few, and thos epeople likley insured anyway, you need health insurance. So the argument is the same, and it is the same regardless of how many it effects.

Kal'Stang said:

Umm...you DO have the option of opting out of health care. Who ever said that you didn't? It happens all the time. I don't take my kids to the hospital every time that they get sick. See, you can opt out. I don't go to the hospital every time I'm sick. I'm sure that millions of other people do too.

Click to expand...

Can you assure you won't use health care? A car's easy. Just don't have one or drive one. If you do, and you're unisured, there's a serious fine.

Kal'Stang said:

So instead of holding the ones that don't pay thier bills responsible you instead want to hold the whole country responsible? That's a bit backwards, don't you think?

Click to expand...

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one."

It may sound crazy, but that's pretty much what's starting to happen in our health care system. The "many" are those who pay health care premiums. The "few" arguably are those on Medicaid (or Medicare, except I think it could be argued our senior citizens have paid their dues toward the health care system either by having been a former participant while part of the working class or via paying into SSN) and the "one" being that individual who's merely taking advantage of the system, thereby raising our rates.

Now, I agree with you that it would be beneficial to us all if hospitals did go after those individuals who don't pay, but there again is the rub. Hospitals would simply pass on those cost to their paying customers - the insured - especially if they can't find those individuals who welched out on the deal OR it turns out the non-paying customer somehow won his case against the medical facility. Thus, we're right back where we started.

And again, I don't think the entire country can be held responsible when the legislation only calls for enforcement of the mandate when two states form HIEs and provide nationwide insurance to those joined states - atleast that's the way I understand how the mandate would work. I'll have to read those sections of the law to be certain, but for now I'd say most people have a false notion of how the law would work where the mandate is concerned. Still, until I review the law and see how the mechnism does in fact work, I can't say for certain you're absolutely wrong and I'm absolutely right.

public option?

someone needs to buy a tv

Capitol Briefing - Conrad Sees Little Chance for Public Option

Democratic senator: Public health insurance option dead – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

nope, this bill as written is as far as it's gonna go

you think the president who caved on tax cuts for the rich is gonna pick up the po

absurd

meanwhile, doctors are dumping medicaid coast to coast, firms are asking out in droves and being allowed to go, the states are mandated to pick up 12 million new enrollees without funding, er traffic actually increases which means even more of the cost is passed on...

but, hey it's a START

LOL!

Le Marteau said:

I had hoped, after DADT being repealed, America would indeed advance into the 20th century.

Looks like it's not quite time, yet.

A shame.

XD

Click to expand...

omg, someone tell me we are not being schooled about our plans for health care by someone from England, and or France

Objective Voice said:

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one."

It may sound crazy, but that's pretty much what's starting to happen in our health care system. The "many" are those who pay health care premiums. The "few" arguably are those on Medicaid (or Medicare, except I think it could be argued our senior citizens have paid their dues toward the health care system either by having been a former participant while part of the working class or via paying into SSN) and the "one" being that individual who's merely taking advantage of the system, thereby raising our rates.

Now, I agree with you that it would be beneficial to us all if hospitals did go after those individuals who don't pay, but there again is the rub. Hospitals would simply pass on those cost to their paying customers - the insured - especially if they can't find those individuals who welched out on the deal OR it turns out the non-paying customer somehow won his case against the medical facility. Thus, we're right back where we started.

Click to expand...

Can't find, or can't make them pay. It cost money to go after someone. So, cost go up even more.

Boo Radley said:

The answer is essential in answering your question. The reason this is argued is because we pay for those who act irresponsible. As I have said, a public option would have been better, and a single payer even better, but let's not lose sight of what is being argued. We have mandatory auot insurance to protect others from the irresponsible drivers who drive uninsured. This is the same rational for having mandatory health insurance. Unless you can opt out by assuring you will never use services you can't pay for, whihc would be few, and thos epeople likley insured anyway, you need health insurance. So the argument is the same, and it is the same regardless of how many it effects.

Click to expand...

No, we have car insurance for accidents. Not for the irresponsibility of others for not having car insurance.

Boo Radley said:

The answer is essential in answering your question. The reason this is argued is because we pay for those who act irresponsible. As I have said, a public option would have been better, and a single payer even better, but let's not lose sight of what is being argued. We have mandatory auot insurance to protect others from the irresponsible drivers who drive uninsured. This is the same rational for having mandatory health insurance. Unless you can opt out by assuring you will never use services you can't pay for, whihc would be few, and thos epeople likley insured anyway, you need health insurance. So the argument is the same, and it is the same regardless of how many it effects.

Click to expand...

None of this makes a bit of difference. The federal government CANNOT mandate that all citizens buy a commercial product, period. This was decided by one judge and soon another will make the same ruling.

I'll take your shuffling around the question as inability to name another product or service mandated by the federal government. Does the federal government require my 10 year old grandaughter to buy auto insurance ??? Does the state ??