U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2014, 10:07 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,569,151 times
Reputation: 8847

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
What was the effect of the individual mandate under Romneycare?
Who cares?
What does that have to do with this article? Did you read it? It's talking about the employer mandate, not the individual mandate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2014, 10:15 AM
 
Location: NE Ohio
30,194 posts, read 16,569,151 times
Reputation: 8847
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Every industrialized country on Earth has a healthcare system like Obamacare.

Obamacare regulates insurance corporations so they can't take advantage of people.
ObamaCare Insurance Premiums

Obamacare saves many consumers money.
HHS: ObamaCare policy has saved consumers nearly $5 billion | TheHill

And Obamacare saves the government money.
How Obamacare Will Save The Federal Government $190 Billion | ThinkProgress

Still Obamacare does have some problems like hurting some small businesses, and raising insurance premiums on some consumers. But liberals and conservatives both have their faults, and they are supposed to work together and fix/fine tune each others programs. But republicans refuse to address and fix Obamacares problems. Instead republicans in Washington want Obamacare to fail.
House GOP: Yes, we want Obamacare to fail - Washington Times

Republicans do not care about Americans negatively effected by Obamacare. Instead republicans want Obamacare to hurt as many Americans as possible, so they can use Obamacare as a political tool in the 2014/2016 elections.
Will Republicans overplay their hand on Obamacare in 2014? - CBS News
GOP's 2016 Hopefuls To Take Turns Trashing Obamacare At Summit

I wish republicans and democrats could have actual conversations about healthcare spending and the uninsured. But instead republicans will only attack Obamacare, and hope it fails so Obamacare can be used as a campaign issue in 2016.
Who cares what everybody else has. They are also socialists. Does that mean we should give up our freedom and become socialists like every other nation? Or, communist?

The American health care system is/was the best in the world. What needed fixing was not the delivery system, but the insurance system. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, as many have suggested, would go a long way to reforming the system.

I don't want to give up my Liberty and become socialist, with a central planning government, in order that a few can have health insurance that didn't have it before, especially since what we are seeing is the destruction of the health care system (doctors dropping out, or rejecting Obamacare patients, limited choices of doctors and hospitals, lack of service outside your area [this becomes a problem for people who travel, or maintain a vacation home elsewhere]).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 10:38 AM
 
10,635 posts, read 6,035,589 times
Reputation: 5612
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Who cares what everybody else has. They are also socialists. Does that mean we should give up our freedom and become socialists like every other nation? Or, communist?

The American health care system is/was the best in the world. What needed fixing was not the delivery system, but the insurance system. Allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines, as many have suggested, would go a long way to reforming the system.

I don't want to give up my Liberty and become socialist, with a central planning government, in order that a few can have health insurance that didn't have it before, especially since what we are seeing is the destruction of the health care system (doctors dropping out, or rejecting Obamacare patients, limited choices of doctors and hospitals, lack of service outside your area [this becomes a problem for people who travel, or maintain a vacation home elsewhere]).
LOL. Socialists, communists and healthcare, oh, my!

You never fail to amuse. Thanks for the laugh, nonsense guy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Ohio
19,692 posts, read 14,151,738 times
Reputation: 15870
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There are millions of us independent contractors out here who had no access to insurance we could afford before the ACA.
The American Hospital Association and your government did that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There are no financial reasons not to expand Medicaid.
Lack of money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
It's unconscionable.
What's unconscionable is your continued support of monopolistic hospitals that illegally collude to illegally fix-prices, engage in price-gouging and over-billing.

Just because you want Americans to pay $55,000 for an appendectomy that probably only costs $2,890 with a fair profit is not a reason to do anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid View Post
The free market also wasnt working that great.
There was no Free Market.

Free Market medical care ended in 1933.

Free Market health insurance ended in 1954.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid View Post
Under the free market those with insurance or government healthcare were consuming 17% of GDP.
That would be another lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
For some reason they believe our "profits over people" system is so great,....
Yeah, $55,000 for an appendectomy that probably only costs $2,890 with profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
... when no other country would swap their UHC for ours. Go figure.
Your system fails because you do not have Free Market healthcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve40th View Post
Wow. So the ACA is now owned by Republicans?
They just never stop lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Where's the right wing plan and legislation?
To follow the Constitutions of the United States of America.

In the first place, no universal healthcare system can exist in the US, until all of the enabling laws bought by the American Hospital Association are repealed at the State level.

Congress has no constitutional authority to repeal or rescind those "enabling laws."

Only the States can do that.

You can read what the Supreme Court says (although I'm not convinced you'd understand it).

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.

Source: National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al. US Supreme Court 2012

Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock.

Source: National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al. US Supreme Court 2012

The Great Irony here is that if the citizens of the several States worked to repeal all of the harmful "enabling laws" bought by the American Hospital Association, then healthcare.....meaning both medical care and the cost of health plan coverage.....would become affordable, thus negating the need for any national or universal healthcare system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Exactly. Only offer criticisms, no meaningful solutions from the right or "Free Market".
Punishing hospitals for engaging in monopoly practices and illegally colluding to illegally fix-prices above Free Market rates is a meaningful solution.

Punishing hospitals for engaging in monopoly practices and price-gouging Americans is a meaningful solution.

Punishing hospitals for engaging in monopoly practices and over-billing Americans is a meaningful solution.

Lowering the cost of medical care is a WIN for you....lower medical costs mean lower costs for health plan coverage.......another WIN for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
Our free market did work befire the ACA.
You haven't had Free Market medical since 1933....and you cannot prove otherwise.

You haven't had Free Market health insurance since 1954...and you cannot prove otherwise.

See the silly Liberals run faster....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 12:34 PM
 
19,798 posts, read 11,033,689 times
Reputation: 19839
Quote:
Originally Posted by pommysmommy View Post
What good does that do you if you can't find a doctor who will accept your health insurance plan?
The "health care policy" of "never let anyone die on the hospital steps" is still in effect. They're still not going to let anyone die on the hospital steps whether the doctor wants to accept the plan or not.

That has not been lost. But more people now do actually have a real policy than before, and there are more people paying into the system now than before, with less being carried by Medicaid (paid for by all taxpayers) and the "hospital losses" (paid for by everyone else who pays their bills in one way or another).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 12:43 PM
 
19,798 posts, read 11,033,689 times
Reputation: 19839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel View Post
I bet you also thought that a patient with cancer could show up to the ER and say, "hey doc, give me some of that chemo and fix me up!!!" EMTALA and er visits only worked for short and acute conditions.

If you had a chronic conditions such as cancer, and uninsured, you were just about SOL, depending on where you live.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I knew a woman who did precisely that, an unemployed (long unemployed) meth addict unwed mother. She went into an emergency room in December, 2012, complaining of pain and general ill health. She was tested and diagnosed with leukemia. She then underwent full treatment that went through August of 2013.

That was mostly all on Medicaid and the hospital. She had a Facebook fundraiser that brought in a couple of thousand dollars--I don't know if all that went to the bill or not. She put in less than $1000 of her own money, though, and that was from family.

So it does work to go to the emergency room for cancer.

However, I had a subordinate at work whose wife had been diagnosed with leukemia 30 days earlier and underwent similar insurance-covered treatment running a month ahead. I did note that she got some instances of better care. For instance, the woman with insurance got considerably more hospital bed time after chemo treatments than the woman without insurance, and she got a lot more medication for pain and other issues.

Maybe that was a matter of the two women having differences in their tolerance of the chemo, but both seemed to have the same degree of difficulties, from the reports I got.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 12:55 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,563,881 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I knew a woman who did precisely that, an unemployed (long unemployed) meth addict unwed mother. She went into an emergency room in December, 2012, complaining of pain and general ill health. She was tested and diagnosed with leukemia. She then underwent full treatment that went through August of 2013.

That was mostly all on Medicaid and the hospital. She had a Facebook fundraiser that brought in a couple of thousand dollars--I don't know if all that went to the bill or not. She put in less than $1000 of her own money, though, and that was from family.

So it does work to go to the emergency room for cancer.

However, I had a subordinate at work whose wife had been diagnosed with leukemia 30 days earlier and underwent similar insurance-covered treatment running a month ahead. I did note that she got some instances of better care. For instance, the woman with insurance got considerably more hospital bed time after chemo treatments than the woman without insurance, and she got a lot more medication for pain and other issues.

Maybe that was a matter of the two women having differences in their tolerance of the chemo, but both seemed to have the same degree of difficulties, from the reports I got.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but you destroyed your own argument. If she had medicaid then she had insurance, but the hospital is not required to treat cancer patients that just show up. The most a hospital is required to do is stabilize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 01:02 PM
 
19,798 posts, read 11,033,689 times
Reputation: 19839
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
I'm not sure if you realize this, but you destroyed your own argument. If she had medicaid then she had insurance, but the hospital is not required to treat cancer patients that just show up. The most a hospital is required to do is stabilize.
No, she had no commercial insurance. I know her home and family circumstances very well. She didn't have insurance when she had her first child, she didn't have insurance when she had her second child (only six months earlier) and she did not have insurance when she was diagnosed with leukemia. She hadn't held a job in years. She had no insurance. Period.

The problem--and this is possibly a Medicaid loophole--is that a diagnosis of acute leukemia is not "stabilized" once made. If it had not been an aggressive case, the hospital might have had an out.

Medicaid is not "insurance." Everyone has Medicaid. My point is that Medicaid is still there for people in the same situation as that woman. Nobody has lost anything they didn't already have--people with no income still have Medicaid. The difference is that Obamacare has put a lot of people on commercial insurance who would have been on Medicaid, and that is a positive thing for the overall economy/.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 01:05 PM
 
11,780 posts, read 8,563,881 times
Reputation: 3425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
No, she had no insurance. I know her home and family circumstances very well. She didn't have insurance when she had her first child, she didn't have insurance when she had her second child (only six months earlier) and she did not have insurance when she was diagnosed with leukemia. She hadn't held a job in years. She had no insurance. Period.

The problem--and this is possibly a loophole--is that a diagnosis of acute leukemia is not "stabilized" once made. If it had not been an aggressive case, the hospital might have had an out.
I thought she had Medicaid.

Quote:
Medicaid is not "insurance." Everyone has Medicaid. My point is that Medicaid is still there for people in the same situation as that woman. Nobody has lost anything they didn't already have--people with no income still have Medicaid. The difference is that Obamacare has put a lot of people on commercial insurance who would have been on Medicaid, and that is a positive thing for the overall economy/.
Not everybody has Medicaid or is even eligible. No income is not enough, typically you need to fall into a certain category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2014, 01:12 PM
 
19,798 posts, read 11,033,689 times
Reputation: 19839
If they were eligible for Medicaid before Obamacare, they're still either eligible for Medicaid or have insurance. If the hospital would have cared for them before as a "loss," it will still care for them now as a "loss."

Nobody was left to die on the hospital steps now who would not have been left to die on the hospital steps before...and that is still nobody.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top