• 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!

How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

  • SCOTUS will uphold the Individual Mandate

    Votes: 6 14.6%

  • SCOTUS will strike down the Individual Mandate

    Votes: 24 58.5%

  • I honestly believe it is too close to call, literally 50/50 either way

    Votes: 11 26.8%
  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
lizzie said:
That is the reason we have public hospitals. They are funded with government funds at various levels, and they provide health care for those who don't have insurance or can't afford the bill.
Click to expand...

You really are clueless.

There are for profit and non profit hospitals. The non profit and for profit hospitals expect patients to pay their bills and will take anyone to collections to do so.

Medical issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.

If you start your own business ... or work for the many companies who do not provide insurance and you have an accident and a few days in ICI and and another week as inpatient will land you about a 100,000 bill. There is no "public" hospital to arrive without insurance for 'people who are not insured".

The NP will will go after you until you pay your last penny and then the rest of your care will spread to others through astronomical cost.

It is irresponsible to not have at least catastrophic insurance and even more irresponsible that out country has a system that make sit almost impossible for many to have insurance or for some ... to be negligent simply because of EMTALA and other laws in which catastrophic care is given and others simply pay for it.

Ridiculous ... Do you realize how expensive "public" hospitals would be in very region that offered "free" care as you have imagined. Why not HCR ... simply organizing a system with a choice of private or public that citizens can afford. A public option payer would have offered competition to a monopoly market.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
You really are clueless.
Click to expand...

How so? What do you think the purpose of a public hospital is? I'll be interested in what you believe public care is, and where you think the funding comes from. I assure you that clueless is something I am not, when the subject is health care.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
1)....
2) Government mandated "charity" has suppressed private charity which often does a far better job in helping people in need rather than merely creating more dependent pawns of the politicians who hand out goodies to the supposed needy.
Click to expand...
This will work for me. Just make sure that the charity hospitals are completely independent from non-charity hospitals so funds are not mixed. The Tea Party family we were chatting with could have had the charity ambulance take him to a charity ER to treat his heart attack. This will work, right?
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
This will work for me. Just make sure that the charity hospitals are completely independent from non-charity hospitals so funds are not mixed. The Tea Party family we were chatting with could have had the charity ambulance take him to a charity ER to treat his heart attack. This will work, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, it will work. Charity hospitals are typically excellent at handling serious emergencies. In fact, it's what they usually excel at. If I were in a serious car accident, or shot by a criminal, I would prefer to be careflighted to our nearest public facility, where they deal with trauma on a regular basis.
 
Dion said:
You really are clueless.

There are for profit and non profit hospitals. The non profit and for profit hospitals expect patients to pay their bills and will take anyone to collections to do so.
Click to expand...

from Wiki:
In the United States, two thirds of all urban hospitals are non-profit. The remaining third is split between for-profit and public. The urban public hospitals are often associated with medical schools. [2] The largest public hospital system in America is the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which is associated with the New York University School of Medicine.
In the U.S., public hospitals receive significant funding from local, state, and/or federal governments. In addition, they may charge Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers for the care of patients. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. Public hospitals, especially in urban areas, have a high concentration of uncompensated care and graduate medical education as compared to all other American hospitals
 
lizzie said:
How so? What do you think the purpose of a public hospital is? I'll be interested in what you believe public care is, and where you think the funding comes from. I assure you that clueless is something I am not, when the subject is health care.
Click to expand...

Fill me in ... I am an NP in Oregon. Where is the public hospital in my state that people who employment does not provide insurance or those who are self employed and cannot afford health insurance go to?
 
lizzie said:
Yes, it will work. Charity hospitals are typically excellent at handling serious emergencies. In fact, it's what they usually excel at. If I were in a serious car accident, or shot by a criminal, I would prefer to be careflighted to our nearest public facility, where they deal with trauma on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Yup, too bad that the Tea Party dad ended up at a non-charity hospital (no others were available) and now owing over $60,000.And now the wife's wages are docked since she works at the hospital. Too bad she was the only one with insurance due to it costing too much to insure the rest of the family.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
Fill me in ... I am an NP in Oregon. Where is the public hospital in my state that people who employment does not provide insurance or those who are self employed and cannot afford health insurance go to?
Click to expand...

You tell me. I am not in Oregon. I am in Texas, where we have 2 major public hospitals within 60 miles of where I live, and two small rural ones. Just because you don't have a public hospital, this somehow implies that I am clueless? Hah- that's a joke.
 
lizzie said:
from Wiki:
In the United States, two thirds of all urban hospitals are non-profit. The remaining third is split between for-profit and public. The urban public hospitals are often associated with medical schools. [2] The largest public hospital system in America is the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which is associated with the New York University School of Medicine.
In the U.S., public hospitals receive significant funding from local, state, and/or federal governments. In addition, they may charge Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers for the care of patients. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. Public hospitals, especially in urban areas, have a high concentration of uncompensated care and graduate medical education as compared to all other American hospitals
Click to expand...

You are a fool ... those are non profit hospitals that accept medicare and medicaid. Public refers to the fact they accept patients who have military, medicare or medicaid as a payer. They also accept private insurance. those who cannot pay the bill go to collections and many end up bankrupt and cost rise for everyone ... in the non profit "public" hospital.

They are not funded to give "free" care to those who are simply uninsured by choice, lack of ability to pay or unable to secure health insurance.

You do not understand your own wiki link.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
You are a fool ... those are non profit hospitals that accept medicare and medicaid. Public refers to the fact they accept patients who have military, medicare or medicaid as a payer. They also accept private insurance. those who cannot pay the bill go to collections and many end up bankrupt and cost rise for everyone ... in the non profit "public" hospital.

They are not funded to give "free" care to those who are simply uninsured by choice, lack of ability to pay or unable to secure health insurance.

You do not understand your own wiki link.
Click to expand...

I''m sure you are familiar with sliding scale fees? No?
 
lizzie said:
You tell me. I am not in Oregon. I am in Texas, where we have 2 major public hospitals within 60 miles of where I live, and two small rural ones. Just because you don't have a public hospital, this somehow implies that I am clueless? Hah- that's a joke.
Click to expand...

Link ...? You do not understand they are public non profit ... meaning they accept public payers. Link me the hospitals that you claim allows uninsured (no public or private payer) working citizens without a public payer to simply come in for free care.

Come on ... you claim to know health care and claim that uninsured simply go to the public hospitals in their area for free care.

Link to this list please ...
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
from Wiki:
In the United States, two thirds of all urban hospitals are non-profit. The remaining third is split between for-profit and public. The urban public hospitals are often associated with medical schools. [2] The largest public hospital system in America is the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which is associated with the New York University School of Medicine.
In the U.S., public hospitals receive significant funding from local, state, and/or federal governments. In addition, they may charge Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers for the care of patients. Poor uninsured patients receive their care for free. Public hospitals, especially in urban areas, have a high concentration of uncompensated care and graduate medical education as compared to all other American hospitals
Click to expand...
I thought so! At a charity hospital the people that can pay do. The people that can't are paid for by the people that do pay for their care. But, this is not what I want. Nor is it what the Tea Party wants.
Thanks for following through with this with me.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
I''m sure you are familiar with sliding scale fees? No?
Click to expand...

I understand sliding scale fees ...yet that is illegal in facilities that accept private or public funds. I work for a non profit regional center that about half our patients have public payers (military, medicare, medicaid). That allows to classified as a public non profit hospital.

The uninsured are expected to pay right along with everyone else and they will go to court and have their wages garnished and assets taken if they do not. That is standard in the health Industrial Complex and not unique to not for profit facilities in the Northwest.
 
Last edited:
OhIsee.Then said:
I thought so! At a charity hospital the people that can pay do. The people that can't are paid for by the people that do pay for their care. But, this is not what I want. Nor is it what the Tea Party wants.
Thanks for following through with this with me.
Click to expand...

No worries ... that is not going to happen and the wiki link does not give clarity.

Still waiting for a list of hospitals from lizzie for each state that give free care to those citizens who choose to be uninsured or cannot afford insurance yet have no public or private payer.
 
Last edited:
Dion said:
No worries ... that is not going to happen and the wiki link does not give clarity.

Still waiting for a list of hospitals from lizzie for each state that give free care to those citizens who choose to be uninsured or cannot afford insurance yet have no public or private payer.
Click to expand...

You live in Oregon, but you expect me to list them for you? You're an NP, but can't look it up? As I said in my previous post, there are 4 within driving distance of me. Certainly, Texas isn't the only state with public hospitals.
 
Dion said:
...
Still waiting for a list of hospitals from lizzie for each state that give free care to those citizens who choose to be uninsured or cannot afford insurance yet have no public or private payer.
Click to expand...
I think you have your list. It's not very long is its problem.
I want to know who is donating the money to these hospitals that funds the free care.
 
Dion said:
I understand sliding scale fees ...yet that is illegal in facilities that accept private or public funds. I work for a non profit regional center that about half our patients have public payers (military, medicare, medicaid). That allows to classified as a public non profit hospital.

The uninsured are expected to pay right along with everyone else and they will go to court and have their wages garnished and assets taken if they do not. That is standard in the health Industrial Complex and not unique to not for profit facilities in the Northwest.
Click to expand...

I worked ina public hospital for 5 years, and for two not-for-profits. Sliding scale payments are common in this area. Perhaps your state needs to update it's regulatory system.
 
The uninsured drive up costs ... for everyone. There are no readily available "free" hospitals for those who chose to be uninsured or work long hours for others or self employed and simply cannot afford insurance. Building such in each a region would be the most expensive inane thought.

Health insurance for catastrophic bills should be mandatory so others do not pay and to keep the sky rocketing health care inflation down.

Sadly ... there should be a mixed market with competition from public and private options for choices to purchase health insurance with a mandate for each citizen to have at least catastrophic coverage. The initial HCR had it right until Obama retreated.

Still waiting for the "list" of free hospitals all around that lizzie thinks are out there people who choose to uninsured or cannot afford insurance.

I certainly am not advocating such. Why not just have options for each citizen to have coverage and be certain we are all covered as to not raise the costs for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Links and list please? I can see you do not understand healthcare economics form either pov ...right or left or libertarian.

lizzie said:
I worked ina public hospital for 5 years, and for two not-for-profits. Sliding scale payments are common in this area. Perhaps your state needs to update it's regulatory system.
Click to expand...
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I think you have your list. It's not very long is its problem.
I want to know who is donating the money to these hospitals that funds the free care.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... they would be completely tax funded and more expensive then any mandate or the current out of control highest cost system.

There is no politician foolish enough to want to build such ... she is clueless.
 
lizzie said:
Taxpayers and charities.
Click to expand...
You left out another source of funding, those with insurance. Insurance pays a fixed amount for a specific service. If the hospital can do it at a lower cost they can use the difference to pay for other expenses. And, don't forget that the Tea Party family is paying a small amount from the wife's check.
 
lizzie said:
Taxpayers and charities.
Click to expand...
I have to add. The Tea Party family hasn't enough income to result in requiring them to pay much in taxes. My wife an I have had sufficient income to pay significant taxes. They were demonstrating against Obama Care we were demonstrating for Obama Care at a federal building that afternoon. They owed the health care system lots of money. We paid all our health care bills and part of theirs. Plus we paid for the very inefficient paperwork system that effectively transfers their cost to our health care system to us. If the law would have allowed the hospital to refuse him care our costs would be lower, but he'd be dead. There are more sad details to the Tea Party family's story about why he got sick, but enough for now.
 
lizzie said:
Okay. Look at it this way. If all hospitals are public hospitals, quality of care will decline. There is no doubt about that. I have worked in both public, private, and not-for-profit hospitals. If you need care, and you can't afford it, the public hospital is available for treatment. You may not get the best treatment available, but your immediate needs will be met. As a pediatrician whom I worked with pointed out to me, some 27 years ago, when I worked on the pediatric unit of a public hospital: the wealthy pay with their money, and the poor pay with their time. You aren't going to get fast and easy health care in a public system. That's just the reality of the situation, and it's the same as we see with European nations who have 100% public care. It's inefficient, the waiting periods are long, and you pretty much have to take what you can get. At least it's care, and at least you can receive it regardless of your ability to pay.
Click to expand...

I prefer a mixed of public and private hospitals, but public hospitals are not serving everybody's needs. Visiting the ER as needed is entirely different when it comes to long term care and going to a family doctor to be healthy. I read an article today about how people with no insurance or not very good insurance, go to the ER more than average. That has been a well known fact for a long time, and such individuals are not as healthy as others with insurance.

And there is also a difference between the rich, poor, and uninsured. A lot of well off people can suddenly find themselves without insurance for any reason... a lot of business owners I know, don't have insurance... a lot of independent business consultants don't get insurance either. Having a good job and no insurance, also excludes these people from the benefits of public funded hospitals. It's based on income after all.

We live in a country where going to doctor is a decision about our health, it's a financial decision... and we are less healthier as a result.

And personally, as somebody who lived in Europe, the waiting list wasn't long to go to the doctor when I needed one. Nor is it long according to my Canadian friends for them. The waiting list in America can be ridiculously long in it's own right, especially if you are a new patient. Going to the ER or to Urgent Care is faster in America than trying to see a doctor regularly.

Excluding some people from healthcare and health insurance plans isn't a good solution to the argument of waiting in line to see a doctor. There are many other places to start by addressing the long wait lines, such as the percentage of doctors to people. Germany has one of the highest percentages of doctors to every person that I am aware of.

America has serious health care issues that need to be addressed and fixed. America doesn't have to follow any other countries model, but America does need to get it together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom