^ the health exchange is just a shopping mall of sorts of private plans. It doesn’t make sense to block someone from dealing with a private company (not sure why heritage felt the need to point it out, but I guess they bank on people not knowing what they’re talking about).

Deferring costs from illegals (or drug dealers, or child molesters, or homosexuals) that can’t pay but would still receive health services (because the vast majority of health providers aren’t going to turn away a sick or dying person, illegal or not) to gov. helps keep costs down for the hospitals, which is good for everyone.

pointing out that a system is open to fraud is pretty pointless too, because any system is open to fraud. I’m happy we don’t feel the need for draconian papers-please like processes, especially when it concerns health care.

11/24/2009 12:07:28 AM

^ So pointing out a "loophole" is only cool when it's about, say, gun shows or tax breaks for the rich? STFU.

11/24/2009 12:19:54 AM

they didn’t point out a loophole, did they? They noted that a system is open to fraud, as is any system. There hasn’t been a system created to date that is immune to fraud.

and i’d rather a loophole allow a sick and dying person to get healthcare, than to allow a criminal or gang member to purchase a gun, wouldn’t you?

11/24/2009 12:22:51 AM

Of course he doesn't. That gun is far more important (because it's in the constitution) than anyone's right to life.

11/24/2009 12:23:47 AM

^ I know you didn't just type "right to life," did you? What, you mean like babies?

11/24/2009 12:28:38 AM

Seriously? You think that's clever what you're posting there? Nice try. You're not bringing your A-game tonight.

11/24/2009 12:30:14 AM

Quote :

" I know you didn't just type 'right to life,' did you? What, you mean like babies?"

11/24/2009 12:33:10 AM

I can play that game too!

Quote :

"Seriously? You think that's clever what you're posting there? Nice try. You're not bringing your A-game tonight."

11/24/2009 12:35:27 AM

Quote :

"^ I know you didn't just type "right to life," did you? What, you mean like babies?"

You brought it up. But it's plain to see that you have no retort.

11/24/2009 12:38:15 AM

Right to life as in right to live... as in not die because they can't get healthcare. Do you get it now? It's not hard to follow along if you, well, READ.

11/24/2009 12:41:10 AM

^ So little babies don't have a "right to live"?

11/24/2009 12:43:37 AM

Dude, what the hell are you doing? What are you trying to prove? What I said has absolutely nothing to do with whatever pro-life schtick that you're trying to push now. You found three little words and decided they mean something that it's pretty clear they didn't mean at all. I appreciate that you're trying, but you're not being terribly clever with this one.

11/24/2009 12:45:59 AM

Quote :

"What are you trying to prove?"

Oh, I've done it--you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about. If all others have a "right to live," as you put it, why don't little babies?

It's a simple question.

11/24/2009 12:53:58 AM

^ You're not being clever enough. I didn't say anything of the sort, but you're trying your damnedest to make it seem that way. I feel very sorry for you, if that's the best you have to offer tonight.

11/24/2009 12:56:21 AM

Quote :

"Right to life as in right to live. . . ."

Optimum

Your words--not mine.

11/24/2009 12:58:11 AM

You're still failing. But I see you're quite good with that quote button. Maybe next you'll work on the logic skills to back up your trivial reasons for using it.

11/24/2009 1:01:25 AM

no one has right to healthcare, but funny enough emergency rooms cannot deny anyone
so thats kinda up in the air

11/24/2009 1:04:46 AM

^^

Quote :

"If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question."

11/24/2009 1:08:11 AM

oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon.

11/24/2009 1:17:56 AM

^

Quote :

"If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question."

11/24/2009 1:25:36 AM

Quote :

"oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon."

11/24/2009 1:26:19 AM

Quote :

""If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question.""

Quote :

""oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon.""

Quote :

""If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question.""

Quote :

""oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon.""

Quote :

""If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question.""

Quote :

""oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon.""

Quote :

""If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question.""

Quote :

""oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon.""

Quote :

""If all others have a 'right to live,' as you put it, why don't little babies? It's a simple question.""

Quote :

""oh look, you're still at it. keep up the good fight, napoleon.""

11/24/2009 1:38:57 AM

^ that's the general idea, yeah. it's fun to match hacksaw when he's being absurd.

11/24/2009 1:41:06 AM

Quote :

"Last I heard, healthcare for illegal immigrants was specifically removed of the Senate bill. That's no longer a concern for you, Mr. Taxpayer."

And the Supreme Court has effectively already ruled in such a way as to make it a moot point. You can't discriminate against illegals in that way. Illegals will get access if this passes

11/24/2009 7:27:48 AM

I've already said that I think the public option would be a disaster, but there's more to this bill that I have a problem with.

There's part of it that makes it illegal for private insurance companies to deny people with pre-existing conditions. Now, aside from the fact that federal government has no constitutional authority to do something like that, this is just a terrible idea. Why even get insurance? Just wait until you get sick. Then get insurance. When you're done getting treatment, drop coverage. The whole point of insurance is that you get it before you get sick.

Now, I understand the problem completely: people get health insurance through their employer, so if they lose their job, they either have to go with COBRA for 36 months or buy their own insurance, and if they have a pre-existing condition, no private insurancy company is going to cover them. This is a problem brought about entirely by the government subsidizing employer-provided health benefits. If people got insurance on their own, you wouldn't even be having this problem.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 12:39:34 PM

Quote :

"Why even get insurance? Just wait until you get sick. Then get insurance. When you're done getting treatment, drop coverage. The whole point of insurance is that you get it before you get sick. "

Not that I disagree with this line of thinking, but, IIRC, there is a mandate for everyone to buy insurance, which pretty much prevents this very scenario

11/24/2009 5:05:01 PM

Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

Quote :

"The President said that he didn't think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the 'biggest question' the House and Senate are facing right now."

http://tinyurl.com/ykw6az5

Quote :

"Q. Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance? Pelosi: [Blah, blah, blah. Doesn't answer question.] Q. But, Madam Speaker, I'm just trying to understand. . .um. . .if you don't buy health insurance, you go to jail? You didn't answer my question. Pelosi: There. . .there is, uh, uh. . .there is. . .I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. [Blah, blah, blah. Doesn't answer question.] Q. Speaker Pelosi? [Pelosi quickly leaves room--does not directly answer question.]"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82ktMQnuRcE

11/24/2009 5:29:32 PM

You can get jail time for having unpaid parking tickets. It's a very outside case, but it can happen. Likewise, there is likely some conceivable scenario where you go to jail for not buying health insurance, but it will surely be a very rare outside case. I don't see how this is surprising or shocking to anyone.

11/24/2009 5:35:28 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how this is surprising or shocking to anyone."

You've pinpointed the problem.

There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.

--Henry David Thoreau

11/24/2009 6:07:20 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how this is surprising or shocking to anyone."

Really? You don't see how it might be shocking that the government is seriously considering throwing people in jail for not buying a product from a private company? Nothing about that at all strikes you as shocking or a break from some very base principles of this country?

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 9:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/24/2009 9:00:00 PM

Quote :

"Really? You don't see how it might be shocking that the government is seriously considering throwing people in jail for not buying a product from a private company? "

Considering this has been going on for decades, and that you are mis-representing the reality of the situation, and don’t see how it’s shocking or surprising to anyone.

11/25/2009 12:27:05 AM

Good preview on what to expect this week in the Senate http://bit.ly/71kO4w

11/29/2009 8:11:53 PM

Quote :

"Considering this has been going on for decades, and that you are mis-representing the reality of the situation, and don’t see how it’s shocking or surprising to anyone."

If you're comparing it to car insurance, thats a completely different subject. Driving is a privledge, living is a right. Not to mention the car insurance market is in a much, much better place thanks to competition from allowing companies to opperate across state lines, controlled costs (car insurance companies dont pay for oil changes), and the fact that they can charge more for riskier people.

11/29/2009 8:20:02 PM

^ The other issue with the car insurance comparison is that no one is forcing you to buy insurance on yourself, only to cover the liability you may have directly to other drivers.

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- The Senate's health bill will keep insurance premiums roughly the same for most Americans and may raise them for some people who buy coverage on their own, according to a new analysis that came the day the Senate kicked off debate on the bill. Democrats and the White House have described the bill as a powerful mechanism for lowering health costs, both for the government and for Americans who face sharply rising insurance premiums. On the Table The analysis released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation painted a more complicated and uncertain picture. It said people who pay for their own insurance would see a higher bill, albeit for more generous benefits, unless they are lower earners who qualify for a new government tax credit. Employees of small firms would effectively see their insurance premiums unchanged, while workers at large firms would see something between unchanged and slightly lower premiums under the bill, according to the analysis."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125961297461570181.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

12/1/2009 7:41:00 AM

^^

Dear Repubs,

Please come back and join the debate when you can bring something more to the table than competition accross state lines, and tort reform. It's not enough ...

Sincerely,

J. Q. Public

12/1/2009 10:28:49 AM

^ How about an end to government subsidizing of employer sponsored health insurance, an end to coverage mandates (really, I don't need acupuncture coverage, I'll be just fine with a real doctor thank you), how about simply enrolling people into already existing government programs for which they are qualified? How about looking for solutions to reduce the cost of health care and not health insurance? How about any of the number of suggestions and ideas presented in the last 43 pages?

12/1/2009 2:13:30 PM

Quote :

"How about any of the number of suggestions and ideas presented in the last 43 pages?"

I guess you guys are smarter then your party then, no?

12/1/2009 2:18:07 PM

Quote :

"^ The other issue with the car insurance comparison is that no one is forcing you to buy insurance on yourself, only to cover the liability you may have directly to other drivers."

Another difference is our govt doesnt force body shops to fix your car even if you cant pay for it.

Fixing that will go along way.

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2009 3:39:45 PM

Yeah, agreed. There shouldn't be a law that says hospitals have to treat someone that comes in. Of course, I can see a problem with that. You have people giving birth or bleeding to death on the emergency room floor. There may be a solution for that, but I doubt it'll come from the government. The current laws are the equivalent of making a restaurant hand out free food to starving homeless people. Sure, you can make the "appeal to emotion" argument by invoking images of people suffering, but at the end of the day, you're forcing someone to provide a service for free, which means taking away goods and services from someone else.

12/1/2009 4:00:33 PM

^ hospitals would provide those services with or without the gov. mandate. Hospitals treating sick people who can't pay is so far from where the problems lie, i don't know why anyone even talks about that.

^^ it won't go that far at all, actually. Instead of the costs the hospitals would incur from treating these sick people anyway being divided among tax payers, they'd get divided up among the patrons of the hospital, which is less ideal.

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM. Reason : ]

12/1/2009 4:18:33 PM

Quote :

"Dear Repubs, Please come back and join the debate when you can bring something more to the table than competition accross state lines, and tort reform. It's not enough ... Sincerely, J. Q. Public"

The retarded false delemma that private insurance and public insurance are the only options for fixing healthcare is why we're in this mess. If you dont understand why insurance is the absolute worst way to handle your every day healthcare costs you're retarded.

Private insurance should be for accidental coverage the same as car insurance. The idea that your insurance provider should pay for every possible healthcare related expense is foolish. Healthcare has guaranteed costs which makes insurance a terrible way to handle them.

if you want to lower healthcare costs you need to get down to the provider level and either do price controls (france) or an out of pocket free-market system. Then use insurance to cover unexpected care only. Hell, maybe even limit it to non-chronic diseases to guarantee everyone can afford it.

Then the fed can pick up the slack for things like chronic conditions (cancer, diabeetus, etc...).

The end result would be for basic dr visits for common things you'd pay out of pocket. For emergency shit like getting hit by a car insurance pays for it, and for long term conditions that insurance was never meant to handle you farm it off to the fed. It would actually come out very similar to the auto insurance industry where you're paying for most of the maintenance yourself, but for big things your insurance company pays. The only problem with that system is that if your car is too expensive to repair, you just get a new one. For people who would otherwise be too expensive to insure, you can have the fed handle them.

Combine that with lower energy prices and better education and most people will be able to afford their own care. If there are still people who cant afford it, the fed can subsidize their insurance.


The current solution is absolutely fucking retarded because it doesn't do anything to control costs or make shit more affordable. All it does is move costs around. Its a terrible idea just like medicare and just like social security. It will continue to add to the national debt and just like every other public insurance plan it will be just as bad or worse than private insurance.

12/1/2009 5:10:30 PM

Quote :

"I guess you guys are smarter then your party then, no?"

And what party do you think that is? Further, why in the world would you assume that any of the political parties are interested in actually reforming the health care system to make it more affordable for consumers?

12/1/2009 7:35:13 PM

moron, I was simply pointing it out with respect to insurance. People know they can get free health care at the hospital, so they choose not to buy health insurance. That was my point. If you can allow hospitals to turn people away. (which I agree, wont happen in serious situations) This will allow people to go to thier doctors instead of ERs for routine care bc it is cheaper. Thus cutting down on the traffic of routine care at the ER. Also, not being allowed to bankrupt medical debt would push most people into getting coverage. imo

12/1/2009 10:07:04 PM

^ I don’t see enough hospitals turning enough people away to cause the effect you’re describing.

Most health workers aren’t as cold hearted as you.

12/1/2009 10:12:59 PM

Its called Triage moron. And most hospitals know their revolving door patients, they all have them and know them well.

And why shouldnt hospitals be able to turn away non emergent care? Our govt doesnt force McDonalds to feed someone who says they are hungry?

You can throw around your little insults moron, but the point remains. Why pay for something when you KNOW you can get it for free and without any recourse. Simply offering more free stuff is no solution, it will only encourage more waste/use.

12/1/2009 10:45:19 PM

^ Here's a scenario. Some person with an already deteriorated immune system gets the flu. They don't get treatment, and it gets worse, say pneumonia. Then they die. By your logic, it'd be okay to turn away the person with the earlier ailment, and make them wait until they're on their deathbed before grudgingly giving them treatment.

Sounds pretty cold-hearted to me.

12/1/2009 10:50:33 PM

I think you are getting stuck with the belief that a hospital is the only place that treat a cold. Not what im saying at all.

By your example, if a person has a lowered immune system they need a regular doctor. Not a different ER doc everytime they go in. So, by my example the patient will be under BETTER care.

Gosh, that does sound damn cold-hearted to me. And this would even allow people actually dying of emergencies actually see the doctor in the EMERGENCY room. So cold. lol

12/1/2009 10:56:23 PM

^ If they can't afford to go to a regular doctor... Which was the whole premise behind my scenario, based on your earlier posting. You're acting as if everyone has equal access to high-quality healthcare when that isn't remotely true.

I'm not in favor of people going to the ER for their standard GP needs, but how do you GET those people to those GPs? You have to make it possible for them, and that means making it affordable. You say offering free stuff isn't a solution, and you're correct in that regard. But you have to replace it with a reasonable alternative.

12/1/2009 11:01:21 PM

Well there are free clinics and most doctors will offer discounts on cash paying patients. If you can get routine care away from insurances you open them up to competition which will force costs down as well as lower costs to doctors, mostly in admin costs of filing and lost revenues with insurance companies. Hell even CVS now has walk in clinics.

What kills me is I will have patients tell me they cannot afford the copay on thier meds, ask me for the dollar, yet have a pack of cigs in their pocket and put down on their history form they smoke 2 packs a day. Ive never once given a buck to those. However, I have to others who were truely desperate. We no charge some as well. Some pay us 5 bucks a month.

In our area we have a big medicaid population. Most docs and nurses that work the hospitals will say the majority of thier routine care at the ER are medicaid. The reason for this is that they have to be fed if they stay long enough in ER, so they bring thier family and they dont require an appointment, like at the regular doctor. And there is no difference in cost to them. Free vs. Free. However the cost to taxpayers is 40 bucks vs 500 bucks.

12/1/2009 11:12:21 PM

Quote :

"And why shouldnt hospitals be able to turn away non emergent care? Our govt doesnt force McDonalds to feed someone who says they are hungry? "

This is an absurd example.

Healthcare has evolved to be the way it is for a reason, it makes no sense to try and argue that this system should be turned upside down by illogical comparisons to the fast food industry.

McDonalds can turn people away because you won’t die my missing a meal at mcdonalds, and you don’t risk injuring or making other people sick.

Quote :

" Why pay for something when you KNOW you can get it for free and without any recourse. Simply offering more free stuff is no solution, it will only encourage more waste/use. "

Because the care you get using this method is very poor and desperate, as you have already noted. Do you really think that there are enough people abusing this system, and there are enough doctors that would behave like you want them to, that making the changes you are asking for will have any meaningful difference?

A better solution to the problem you’re describing might be to perhaps require these revolving-door abusers to get insurance, then shunt them to a primary care doctor who can better treat them, and possibly offer them preventative care.

12/1/2009 11:48:07 PM