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.
Not true. The way companies make a profit is by keeping their overhead expenses less than their revenues. Millions of companies do it everyday. Those companies that can't, go out of business. Only parasites look for government assistance, because they can't make it any other way.
The solution is to keep government out of health care. Instead government should be focusing on tort reform, and a reduction in fraud through vigorous prosecution.
That is the reason I don't think health care should be "for profit".
Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus430
Who pays the doctors and hospitals for the uninsured that can't afford out-of-pocket? We do with inflated fees.
I didn't adress it because others already have in a previous post in the thread. If u chose to ignore it that is up to you.
It is a living doc meant for interpretation that makes it flexible in specifics with the changing times. Again read posts by others who have already pointed out why I am correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1
I searched the thread and could not find the specific issues I raised addressed with supportive documentation. I did find plenty of opinions, but nothing substantiated. Perhaps you could be so kind as to direct me to the specific posts you have in mind so I may address those particular posts.
<snip>
And so, the question remains, under which article, section clause or amendment of our Constitution have the people knowingly and willingly delegated a power to Congress to tax for, spend on and “regulate” their personal health care needs?
You have repeatedly asserted Congress’s power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people is found in the phrase “general welfare”. I went to post 734 and found nothing there referencing the phrase “general welfare”. Neither words appear in that post! You indicated the issue was addressed by others and when I ask for the specific posts you direct me to a post which does not even mention the phrase “general welfare”. Why?
I, on the other hand, took the time in POST 750 to document the meaning of “general welfare” as used by the founding fathers during the framing and ratification of our Constitution. And the documentation I provided contradicts your personal opinion that Congress has power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people ”because of the "general welfare" clause in hte constitution.”
Why do you keep making such an assertion when it is not in harmony with the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, and which I provided for you in POST 750 with specific reference to the phrase “general welfare“?
Who pays the doctors and hospitals for the uninsured that can't afford out-of-pocket? We do with inflated fees.
A lot of times those without insurance are charged more than those on Medicare and those with insurance.
In this book I'm reading Critical Care: How Health Care in American Became Big Business & Bad Medicine,
Quote:
Almost everybody knows that a hospital can be hazardous to your financial health if you don't have insurance. What isn't so well know is that hospitals charge the highest prices to those who don't have insurance.
Hospitals have a so-called official price list for their services. It's the equivalent of sticker price on a car. Big health insurers, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and Medicare negotiate to obtain volume discounts off those rates, so they pay only a fraction of a hospital's official price. Studies show an uninsured person who is not backed by the muscle of a pool is billed three, four, five, sometimes as much as ten times more than an insurance company whose patient has the exact same treatment.
OU Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, charged an unisured patient $85,400 for a crainiotomy. A typical insurer would have paid $15,600 for the same procedure. Medicare would have paid $13,900. For the unfortunate Oklahoma patient, the bill represented a 447 percent premium over the price an insured patient would have been charged and a 514 percent over Medicare. The OU Medical Center is part of the country's largest for-profit hospital chain, HCA Inc.
It's like putting a thousand dollars in singles on the table in the library and a sign that say's take only what you need.
it would be gone when the first person walked by.
You cant trust people to only take what they need
because what they need always gets all befuddled by
what they want.
and they always want more.
Humans are greedy, selfish animals
we need regulations in order to do the "right thing"
Johnhwk if you don't understand re entire concept about how it is a living doc up for interpretation and how it was designed in just that way. How thy is the genious of the constitution and how over time it and it' meaning has been re interpreted then you are a lost cause.
It's common sense that fixing the system at this point falls on a national level. To say rhe constitution doesn't specify that is crazy as HC as we know it didn't exist as does a lot of things we have today that are reg on fed level.
If the doctors, hospitals and medical insurance providers didn't rape us with outrageous fees, we wouldn't need reform, would we?
I'm not sure if we could put price control on health care providers and health insurance companies. The only option would be to adopt a system like the British.
Having said that, the reform is about more than just making it affordable. It is also about building consumer protection (so people currently covered are not purged off when they become too expensive for the insurance companies), setting minimum standards that all insurance providers must follow (so people are not taken for a ride and denied coverage) and putting a system in place where those who are continuously denied insurance coverage can have a way to be covered at a reasonable price.
Remember that just because Obama says it, doesn't mean that it's the truth. Presidents are allowed to lie just like you and me.
Universal Health Care is a bad bad idea. I don't know why people can't look at economics and understand them. Take a few university level economics classes and you can quickly figure out the basics of how an economy should work. Here's a few economic laws.
1) Efficiency and productivity in anything correlates to incentive. Increase in incentive= increase in efficiency...
When incentive = profit. You lose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josmchicago
Any government run program has to be funded by tax dollars.
And so are the subsidies, tax breaks to corporations. Besides, nothing is free. Is your health insurance? Just because you don't premiums "tax dollars" doesn't make it anything but a necessary evil applied against your income. As for public option, people are expected to buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by josmchicago
I don't particularly want part of my paycheck to go towards paying for somebody else's healthcare, car, refrigerator... etc.
It already does. You just don't know it. That is the problem with ostrich syndrome. Bring things to light, and suddenly it is an issue.
I would like a yacht and a home on the French Riviera, but that does not mean I have the right to demand taxpayers pay for it. If you want a service or a product, earn the money to pay for it and stop demanding that others pay your way.
You could always buy the government, lie to the simpletons, assemble a bunch of self-defeaters, and ensure that the system benefits you and your corporation and not the people. Then you can have a yacht and a home on the French Riviera, among many other things. And you don't have to call it "tax"... just use a more politically correct term: "premium".
Quote:
Not true. The way companies make a profit is by keeping their overhead expenses less than their revenues. Millions of companies do it everyday.
Can't speak for you but we don't live in an ideal world. But, may be, your idea of "overhead expenses" is different. Would you mind explaining the rapid increase in health insurance costs over last decade?
Quote:
The only limit that applies to a product or service is whatever the market will bare. If you were serious about reducing health care insurance costs you would be supporting tort reform and measures to eliminate the massive fraud in the industry.
Tort reform exists in 38 states. And other 12 can also go for it. Do you really believe it will take care of the issues? Tort reform is nothing but a distraction, designed for, of and by corporate interests.
Quote:
Instead, you are just looking for more ways for government to control every aspect of our lives. A "cradle-to-grave" nanny state.
You would rather have corporations run this country, again (if they already aren't). From one authority to another.
In his September 9th, 22 minutes into his address to Congress on health care reform, Obama stated: "No federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscious laws will remain in place." Did perhaps Obama simply forget his very recent proposal to rescind the conscious laws or did he purposefully lie?
Here are the December 19, 2008, final rules that the Bush Administration put into place to insure that the Health and Human Services would not discriminate against medical facilities and individuals who wish not to provide abortion services.
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.
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.
