3

5/26/2009 5:43:33 PM

Quote :

"I have NO confidence that providing healthcare for the majority of the people added to that will somehow improve our fiscal situation."

Do you even have any clue how much money hospitals lose on those who can't afford to pay because the hospital ER can't refuse treatment? Now just think about how many more people can't afford health insurance or to pay for their ER visits because of this recession/layoffs. Now lump in all those people who used to go to their family doctor and now go to the ER for everything. So yes, healthcare is really hurting us.

5/26/2009 5:48:09 PM

^ERs should be allowed to refuse treatment.


Fail boat, did you google finasteride yet? I was awaiting your response. LOL

THis was the hunt link noone commented on.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

5/26/2009 6:33:32 PM

Quote :

"Which one? When a guy starts making points that he thinks are supportive of his argument but are actually supportive of mine, I kinda stop bothering."

Do explain.

5/26/2009 6:50:50 PM

Quote :

"Do you even have any clue how much money hospitals lose on those who can't afford to pay because the hospital ER can't refuse treatment?"

From what I remember reading, the cost is not significant relative to what it would cost to subsidize all Americans' health care, which makes sense.

The better solution is to cut down on the barriers to starting and operating retail health clinics, which can often serve as substitutes for EDs for routine care. It varies by state, but there are significant regulatory hurdles and growing pressure from certain interest groups (e.g. family physicians) to raise them.

The second-half of this 20/20 shows such clinics in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_KCLm9cekU

This is an example of the entrepreneurial solutions provided by individuals wishing to meet unmet needs in a more efficient, cost-friendly way. Sadly, this evil, greedy force is being pre-empted by those who think they can plan it better.

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/26/2009 7:19:43 PM

Quote :

"I'll lay it out simple: if someone can't pay for lifesaving procedures to save their life, there should still be a guaranteed way to help them live (like an emergency public health money pot), even if they did make bad decisions earlier in life. "

So how long should Teri Schiavo been allowed to live off the public dime?

5/26/2009 7:23:12 PM

Quote :

"From what I remember reading, the cost is not significant relative to what it would cost to subsidize all Americans' health care, which makes sense. "

you remembered wrong. but to sum it up... hospitals that can spend money help the economy a great deal and provide a shit ton of jobs. (and i'm not even talking doctors, nurses and general hospital staff). But if a hospital's capital budgets are frozen because of 1) bad economy and 2) losing a shit ton of money on patients who can't pay... well there goes all the benefits out the window.

5/26/2009 8:31:27 PM

^Sure, the uninsured strain our emergency services and cost hospitals money. But you're gonna have a tough time convincing anyone that the government insuring all those people would somehow be a cheaper solution in any way, shape or form. A better solution? Maybe. Cheaper? Not by a long shot.

5/26/2009 8:39:53 PM

there is a much easier way to encourage people to take care of the poor. Allow the provider a 100% tax credit for whatever services they provide to the poor. Instead of having a medicaid system where they typically pay little, charge nothing, but be able to have a tax credit for the full amount you would charge a paying customer.

5/26/2009 9:43:51 PM

Quote :

"charge nothing, but be able to have a tax credit for the full amount you would charge a paying customer."

rofl. They'll be inviting people in off the street, administering them 100 different tests, and then writing it off the taxes. Only, they won't be administering shit, and since they didn't actually pay, there isn't any real paper trail.

Yeah, this is going to work.

5/26/2009 10:05:15 PM

I haven't read most of this thread, but what kind of bullshit excuse do the pro-federal healthcare types have regarding the constitutionality of such a measure?

5/26/2009 10:59:43 PM

what's the constitutional argument against it

5/26/2009 11:03:23 PM

Uhhh...

Quote :

"Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

Quote :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Edited on May 26, 2009 at 11:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/26/2009 11:17:58 PM

don't worry about that damned Constitution. It's so outdated.

5/26/2009 11:42:06 PM

Quote :

"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States"

It seems like healthcare could fall into that category.

5/26/2009 11:57:55 PM

what, exactly, then, wouldn't be limited by that clause? It's a bit absurd to take that stance there, buddy.

5/27/2009 12:01:47 AM

I don't know. But we have Medicare and Medicaid already. Where is that covered by the Constitution? They are just healthcare for the old and the poor and disabled. Why is it such a leap to have healthcare for everyone else?

5/27/2009 12:10:34 AM

Quote :

"Where is that covered by the Constitution? "

It's not... you're waking up.

Duke posted every responsibility the Congress is allowed to do. Taking your money away from you to pay someone else's medical bills is not one of them.

5/27/2009 12:14:09 AM

you seem to be forgetting the whole "necessary and proper" clause. also the past two centuries of history

5/27/2009 12:20:44 AM

nvm

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 12:28 AM. Reason : sorry]

5/27/2009 12:28:16 AM

Quote :

"what, exactly, then, wouldn't be limited by that clause? It's a bit absurd to take that stance there, buddy. "

That was pretty much the intention... it's why we have the 3 branches to battle out what's what. Living document and all that...

5/27/2009 12:34:20 AM

why waste the time writing a document specifying the full extent of the gov't's power only to put in two words that neuter the entire document?

5/27/2009 7:10:23 AM

Quote :

"They'll be inviting people in off the street, administering them 100 different tests, and then writing it off the taxes. Only, they won't be administering shit, and since they didn't actually pay, there isn't any real paper trail. Yeah, this is going to work."

So, kind of like now?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/breaking-news/story/1057438.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hf5J5c8xYSTsq4keQjQElf76CbjAD98D8DS80

At least with eyedrb's proposal, you would actually be paying them.

5/27/2009 7:58:15 AM

What?

5/27/2009 8:23:29 AM

so, Congress goes for 200 years overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and nobody apparently says shit about it, but then when you find one particular issue you're opposed to, you bring out Section 8 and cry foul?

How many times do you think we'd find people complaining about Section 8 in TSB when arguing about what Congress is doing, before now?

5/27/2009 8:30:25 AM

Quote :

"it's why we have the 3 branches to battle out what's what"

So the Founders set up the country with the the thought that the federal gov't could do pretty much whatever it wanted to the citizenry- with the three branches merely bickering among themselves as to who gets what?

Quote :

"How many times do you think we'd find people complaining about Section 8 in TSB when arguing about what Congress is doing, before now?"

Yes we don't mind congress overstepping its authority when it helps us. That's the question. Would you be willing to give up your own personal favorite gov't goody, in order to reduce the size of gov't and reign in power-hungry politicians. They know what you want, and use those desires to build their power at the expense of your liberty.

5/27/2009 10:34:38 AM

Quote :

"What?"

Allow me to spell it out for you.

eyedrb proposes a system to encourage doctors to treat those who can't afford treatment by being able to write off the costs of that treatment on their taxes (a tax system precedent that already exists in the tax laws regarding capital gains and losses and for hobbies).

You criticize the proposal on the grounds that it will encourage doctors to seek out patients and perform treatments that don't need to be done, or even claim procedures that were never done.

I point out that such problems already exist under the current system, in both forms and suggest that at least under eyedrb's system, you (the tax payer) wouldn't be paying these fraudsters, rather they would merely be keeping their own money.

I admit this assumes that a) under eyedrb's proposal a doctor would not be able to go negative with their write offs and b) that you must subscribe to the idea that the money people earn is theirs and not the government's but I really don't see how this is all that confusing.

Quote :

"so, Congress goes for 200 years overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and nobody apparently says shit about it, but then when you find one particular issue you're opposed to, you bring out Section 8 and cry foul? "

Have you been asleep for your entire life? People have been complaining about the government overstepping their bonds and going way outside constitutional authority for years.

Quote :

"How many times do you think we'd find people complaining about Section 8 in TSB when arguing about what Congress is doing, before now?"

A whole lot, at least from the same people who are complaining now.

5/27/2009 1:06:25 PM

Quote :

" Sometime tells me that if you have an "accident" skydiving it'll increase the costs in the life insurance industry, not health insurance. And statistically, its much safer than driving a car. So maybe if you're concerned about being irresponsible and wreckless b/c someone's paying for your insurance you should just walk everywhere "

You've been skydiving and you were way wrong on both points. There are lots of minor skydiving injuries a lot of it has to do with media perception and the way they report accidents (most of the time the root cause is parachute not opening which is almost never the case). Secondly a lot of insurance policies, but not all, have provisions prohibiting pay out in a general aviation accident. I pay for my own insurance because I do a lot of things that are dangerous.

As for the danger of skydiving--the insurance agency uses very old numbers to come up with payout scales. Most of their numbers are antiquated. Skydiving is a lot safer now than it was 15 years ago due to better training and way safer than 25 years ago because of better equipment. It's still way more dangerous than driving, anyone that tells you different is lying to you. The amount of time and preparation you spend to stay safe skydiving is much, much greater than driving (how many of you practice emergency procedures often in your car or make sure it's in perfect working order before every drive to the store) and people still die at a rate of about 30 per year skydiving... Granted a lot of it is mistakes of the person in the accident but you can never take the human element out of how dangerous something is.

As for the topic I like the idea of having the option to be risky and dangerous. It beats the hell out of paying the pharmaceutical companies $400/prescription for shit that's untested and does little to cure depression.

5/27/2009 1:23:39 PM

Quote :

"Congress goes for 200 years overstepping their Constitutional bounds, and nobody apparently says shit about it"

WHAT?
Honestly, WHAT? You should know better than that.

I suppose the American Civil War wasn't really that big a deal. No one said shit about anything back then. They certainly didn't kill their fellow countrymen over the issue of state's rights vs federal power.

Oh, and that one guy... Andrew Jackson. And his whole "dissolving the national banks" idea.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM. Reason : just to name the most obvious]

5/27/2009 3:05:24 PM

ok, fine - it was hyperbole.

What I should have said was: You guys go 14 years without saying shit about Congress overstepping its bounds, then when your party loses power, you won't shut up about it.

same story when "your guy" is President - he can do no wrong and can do anythign he pleases in the name of national security, but then when "the other guy" gets in power, he's supposed to curl up in a Executive Ball and not say anything

5/27/2009 3:11:52 PM

"My guy" is never president... I'm a libertarian ("small l" as much as I hate that terminology). I've just sort of accepted that the US Government is FUBAR and stopped caring, basically.

5/27/2009 3:19:33 PM

Quote :

""Most people have a romantic view about what governmentthe free market can do to “solve”create our problems; a view that is far removed from reality and empirical evidence.""

The difference is, the romantic view of government is not backed up empirically whereas the free-market view is. As economist Thomas Sowell once put it, we do not have "faith" in the power of the free market. We have evidence.

Imagine if you were to tell an official of (then) USSR that all they needed to do to end food shortages and starvation was to have the government get out of the production process altogether. Just let the “free market” – which after all is not some metaphysical force, but rather you, I and every other individual who voluntarily exchange goods and services – take care of the rest. Prices would signal to suppliers to supply more food. Entrepreneur’s, driven by the pursuit of increasing their own well being, would find new, cost-effective ways to grow ever-greater quantities of food to meet the demand of those in need. All this would happen without any public funding. Surely, the official would look at you as if you were some wishful-thinking dreamer - just as you look at people, like myself, who think the same advice should be applied to medical care. While the goods and services are fundamentally different, the incentives that guide and direct economic behavior are not.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : ,]

5/27/2009 6:22:51 PM

^^ Again, you must have been asleep for the last 14 years. The same people complaining about the government overstepping its bounds now have been complaining about it for years.

5/27/2009 6:23:00 PM

thanks for explaining that earlier 1337, great job. This would encourage all doctors and hospitals to see these patients. Most docs are now moving to not taking medicaid bc of the hassle and the lack of reimbursement. If you would bill 100 bucks for a visit, being able to deduct that amount in taxes is more desireable than billing 100 to medicaid, being paid 30 and then paying taxes on the 30. And that is even if they show up. Its not that hard a concept to grasp...for most.

5/27/2009 6:38:09 PM

^^ seriously. I thought I was going to get the "Will you stop bringing up the Constitution and its enumerated powers and 10th Amendment?" I never dreamed that we'd be accused of not caring until Obama got elected or except for regarding the universal healthcare debate.

5/27/2009 8:55:32 PM

It's not perfect, but seems to be a step in the right direction...

Quote :

"Republican congressional leaders are finally offering a clear alternative to the health-reform plans being developed by the White House and Democrats in Congress. The goals and the rhetoric of both sides are remarkably similar: cover the uninsured, allow people to keep the coverage they have, provide more choices of affordable health insurance, and rein in health costs. But their policy prescriptions are remarkably different. Democrats are uniting around proposals to vastly expand federal regulation of health insurance, require everyone to have coverage, and compel employers to provide federally prescribed insurance or pay a new tax. A new Medicare-like insurance plan is still being debated, but even if it doesn't make the cut, Congress could regulate its way to a government-dominated market. Four Republicans in Congress -- Sens. Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) and Richard Burr (North Carolina) and Reps. Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) and Devin Nunes (California) -- will today introduce a bill that moves away from federal centralization. Aptly called the Patients' Choice Act, it provides a path to universal coverage by redirecting current subsidies for health insurance to individuals. It also provides a new safety net that guarantees access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. The nexus of their plan is redirecting the $300 billion annual tax subsidy for employment-based health insurance to individuals in the form of refundable, advanceable tax credits. Families would get $5,700 a year and individuals $2,300 to buy insurance and invest in Health Savings Accounts. Low-income Americans would get a supplemental debit card of up to $5,000 to help them purchase insurance and pay out-of-pocket costs. They would have an incentive to spend wisely since up to one-fourth of any unspent money in the accounts could be rolled over to the next year. The combination of the refundable tax credit and debit card gives lower-income Americans a way out of the Medicaid ghetto so they can have the dignity of private insurance. The great majority of Americans with job-based health insurance would see little more than a bookkeeping change with the Patients' Choice plan. But implicit in the policy is the acknowledgment that our system of tying health insurance to the workplace is not working for upwards of 45 million uninsured Americans. That's a pivotal point in the fight over reform: Will the next health-reform bill lock in a system of job-based health insurance or allow more individual choice and portability to fit a 21st century work force? Democrats are fretting over how to pay for their plans, which early estimates peg at $1.5 trillion or more over 10 years. Economists at a recent Senate Finance Committee roundtable unanimously supported limiting the virtually invisible $300 billion tax subsidy that workers receive when they get health insurance through their employers. Even Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said he feels like Willie Sutton: Congress must look at redirecting at least some of this huge subsidy because "that's where the money is." This is the same proposal John McCain was criticized for during the 2008 presidential campaign. Television ads by the Obama campaign pounded him for "taxing your health insurance." Employers worry that their contributions toward their workers' health insurance premiums no longer would be recognized as legitimate business expenses. The Republican alternative doesn't touch that. Whether companies offer their workers compensation in the form of health insurance or cash wages, they still can deduct the full cost. While many Americans are fed up with private insurance, opinion polls consistently show a majority think government-controlled health care would be worse. There are problems in the private insurance market, and the Republican plan takes steps that can help. States could provide one-stop insurance shopping through new Health Care Exchanges rather than giving the federal government control, as most Democratic plans would do. And it frees up Medicaid money and provides added resources to the states to target additional help to those with disabilities and low incomes. It also calls for auto-enrollment to expand insurance coverage: People will have many options and opportunities to select insurance, but if they don't make an active choice they can be automatically enrolled in private policies financed by the tax credit. Who will control the system? Doctors and patients, or politicians and regulators? That's the crux of this year's health-care debate. The Republican proposal makes the choice clear. Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute. Mr. Antos is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html

It's quite similar to what the Deputy Director of Obama’s National Economic Council advocated last year. I wonder if he has Obama's ear.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 10:04 PM. Reason : ,]

5/27/2009 10:03:39 PM