Are you entitled?

[syrenn]

We need doctors. Why no one bothered to care what kind of strain the ACA would put on our lack of doctors, I'm not sure.

Bottom line, we're very short on doctors now, and we need to work to fix it now, before we are in desperate need 10 years from now.

yes... and i bet the howl would go up .... sending the poor to teaching hospitals for care. Or if clinics were staffed by student to care for people on obamacare.....

 

[Mac1958]

sure they can.... what novels have you been reading? Any doctor can refuse to see or treat anyone. There is no law forcing a doctor to treat you.

Well, that's correct, but there IS a law that an emergency room must treat you:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

Which is even MORE expensive.

.

 

[syrenn]

Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?

It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.

Basic healthcare should be available regardless of one's ability to pay, in the same manner that a basic public education is available.

i agree.... basic.

so for instance... yes you need a kidney transplant, but you will have to get by on drugs alone.

how about the sex change operations? its not medically necessary to have one... so get by on anti depressants... you will live.


but no.... that is rationing and death panels... right?

 

[syrenn]

sure they can.... what novels have you been reading? Any doctor can refuse to see or treat anyone. There is no law forcing a doctor to treat you.

Well, that's correct, but there IS a law that an emergency room must treat you:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

Which is even MORE expensive.

.

obama care is not about emergency rooms now is it?

Its about the day to day health care of ...... people who cant pay. Of which... doctors are NOT required to accept you as a patient. Why should they be if you cant pay them for their services?

 

[Mac1958]

sure they can.... what novels have you been reading? Any doctor can refuse to see or treat anyone. There is no law forcing a doctor to treat you.

Well, that's correct, but there IS a law that an emergency room must treat you:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

Which is even MORE expensive.

.

obama care is not about emergency rooms now is it?

Its about the day to day health care of ...... people who cant pay. Of which... doctors are NOT required to accept you as a patient. Why should they be if you cant pay them for their services?

So our having to pay for expensive emergency rooms flooded with people who can't pay is okay with you?

Seriously?

.

 

[syrenn]

Well, that's correct, but there IS a law that an emergency room must treat you:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)

Which is even MORE expensive.

.

obama care is not about emergency rooms now is it?

Its about the day to day health care of ...... people who cant pay. Of which... doctors are NOT required to accept you as a patient. Why should they be if you cant pay them for their services?

So our having to pay for expensive emergency rooms flooded with people who can't pay is okay with you?

Seriously?

.

of course not.... they are getting services for free and bankrupting a system that I pay for.... I don't want them in the ER for their day to day health care.... period.

I am all for farming them out to obamacare clinics.... I am sure they will have plenty people willing to volunteer their time and services for free...

 

[MikeK]

some people exist to get what ever they can for free.... becasue the world owes them.

You're talking about the omnipresent ten percent who are always with us and always will be -- unless we choose to adopt an extermination policy. But we cannot allow this socially dysfunctional fringe to harden us against the needs of those who are genuinely deserving.

The ten percent are goldbrickers, slackers, malingerers, and freeloaders. They are psychologically defective and in a real sense are analogous to those who are born incredibly ugly, or with obnoxious personalities, or with grossly offensive body odors, etc.

 

[Dreamy]

What did people do 50 years ago? 40? Why have we gotten to this point? People didn't even have health insurance but often paid out of pocket because the costs were not in the stratosphere like they are today.

 

[MikeK]

What did people do 50 years ago? 40? Why have we gotten to this point? People didn't even have health insurance but often paid out of pocket because the costs were not in the stratosphere like they are today.

You've asked a valid question. I believe the blame lies with the legal profession and the insurance industry which have collaboratively driven the cost of medical services through the roof.

 

[MikeK]

I had the unfortunate task of going to the doctor today. My doctor is gone, he elected not to return to his practice after obama was elected. But, all is not lost. Medical care has been shifted off to a physician's assistant who is salaried and employed by the County Health Department. Normally, I just pay a doctor for services. But, when I turned 65, I got free healthcare so why not use it. It's not only free, but worth being free. I went to the PA, where she asked what was wrong, so I told her that I had previously made a diagnosis. Then she asked me what I wanted prescribed and she wrote the prescription.

What about people who don't know? They know there is something wrong, but not what it is. What happens to these people who feel funny, got a spot they never saw before or a strange pain. Are they treated? Are they even diagnosed? No they aren't. The PA knows the most common ailments and if it needs more than 30 seconds, the PA will refer the patient to another PA, and another after that, and another. This will continue until the person figures it out, dies or comes across a PA by chance that has some additional knowledge. That is what medical care in the US has become. We may as well go back to witch doctors shaking rattles.

Sorry you are having such a negative experience. Do you live in a remote and isolated area where alternatives are unavailable?

I'm on Medicare, too, and my experience has been completely positive -- including total recovery from advanced prostate cancer. The only complaint I have is the average two hour wait to see my primary MD whom I believe is perfectly competent and likeable. Overall, Medicare is and has been for me a wonderful advantage.

 

[MikeK]

The federal government is not empowered via the constitution to hand out any entitlement... it is an abuse of power that was assumed by those craving power within our government... this power was grabbed without amendment to the constitution

That empowerment is inherent in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8.)

Nope. Its to promote the GW not PROVIDE the GW.

The primary definition of promote is to bring something into being. Which, in your semantic two-step, does not depart in meaning from providing. To bring something into being is to provide it or to ensure its provision.

 

[Claudette]

That empowerment is inherent in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8.)

Nope. Its to promote the GW not PROVIDE the GW.

The primary definition of promote is to bring something into being. Which, in your semantic two-step, does not depart in meaning from providing. To bring something into being is to provide it or to ensure its provision.

Kinda funny how no one in Govt before Welfare came into effect saw it that way.

Folks were expected to take care of themselves and no one thought that anyones tax dollars should be used to provide for anyone else.

Promote: to help or encourage to exist or flourish

No provide in there sport. Encourage to exist is a long way from providing for.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Entitled? Meh, I don't know.

But I do know this: As a person who is very careful with his money (read: "cheapskate"), I know that when people don't have easy and affordable access to preventive/diagnostic services and/or medications, their illnesses and conditions become worse over time and end up costing us (read: "me") far, far more in the long run when those illnesses and conditions inevitably turn to shit.

This isn't exactly fucking rocket science, and I don't understand why so many people cry about "my money" when they're perfectly willing to let the illnesses and conditions of others turn to shit, which (if I may be redundant) cost far, far more in the long run.

Okay, scratch that, I do understand why they do it: They're committed at a cellular level to their trance-like partisan ideology, which requires them to play follow the leader with the division pimps who automatically and completely knee-jerk against anything that challenges their fucking dogma, regardless of the damage caused.

.

...and I would add that virtually all of the required mechanisms are already in place for far more effective public/private partnership on health care, and that opportunity has been wasted.

.

 

[DiamondDave]

That empowerment is inherent in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8.)

You've shown nothing in this entire thread but your opinion and your personal interpretations.

Many people like to stop after the word welfare and not use the entire phrase.. and also neglect to understand why a semi-colon is used to tie to the list of EXACT powers that are granted to congress in article 1 section 8.. then they also forget that if it is not SPECIFICALLY granted (Art 1 Sec 8 was not made to be a catch all) the power is then held by the state and/or the individuals thanks to the 10th amendment.

I'm not a Constitiutional scholar and I don't think you are, either. But one thing I know is many circumstances which exist in contemporary America were beyond the ability of the Framers to anticipate or envision, including the enormous wealth made possible by the Industrial Revolution, the vast rise in population, and all of the peripheral circumstances those two factors would engender.

The fact is the Framers did foresee the need for government to promote the General Welfare of the population. So for this, as with all unspecified provisions in The Document, the principle of Original Intent must be applied. And considering the consequences of ignoring something as critically important as the health needs of millions of citizens who are simply unable to pay for available medical attention, how does one not infer that something so vital to a healthy society would not be included the the concept of General Welfare?

Again, I'm not a Constitutional scholar and I don't think you are, either.

No.. they did not.. because, you see, when they meant the people, they said the people... and when they meant the union, they stated that it was the union (AKA The United States)...

And AGAIN, you love to leave it off after the word WELFARE which is not the end of the phrase or sentence

It is simple goddamn English... and if you cannot understand how a sentence is read or understood, I suggest going back to elementary school

 

[DiamondDave]

That empowerment is inherent in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8.)

Nope. Its to promote the GW not PROVIDE the GW.

The primary definition of promote is to bring something into being. Which, in your semantic two-step, does not depart in meaning from providing. To bring something into being is to provide it or to ensure its provision.

Again.. no it is not.. even if it is what YOU want it to mean

To promote is to encourage....

Kind of like you encourage your kid to have work ethic and do well... you give them guidance, you ensure they receive the message and the lesson... but in the end, it is up to them to do it for themselves...

To promote an environment where people do well is not to do everything for them so they have to do nothing to meet their needs

And by the way, the preamble is not something that grants powers to the government... it is an invocation, an introduction or a foreword to the body of the constitution

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?

It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.

Basic healthcare should be available regardless of one's ability to pay, in the same manner that a basic public education is available.

Basic healthcare is available.

.

Really? Then - for example - the accounts we hear of people going bankrupt because of healthcare bills are what? Fabricated?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What did people do 50 years ago? 40? Why have we gotten to this point? People didn't even have health insurance but often paid out of pocket because the costs were not in the stratosphere like they are today.

They took a chicken to the doctor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you entitled to medical care? If you get sick, need medical attention, are you entitled to it, regardless that you can't afford it?

It seems this is a fundamental split in our nation, those that feel medical care is a right, and those that feel its not.

Basic healthcare should be available regardless of one's ability to pay, in the same manner that a basic public education is available.

Basic healthcare is available.

.

To the extent that's true, it's only because conservatives have not had the political power to prevent that from happening.

 

[DiamondDave]

Being available and being paid for by someone else so you can get what you want, are 2 different things

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The federal government is not empowered via the constitution to hand out any entitlement... it is an abuse of power that was assumed by those craving power within our government... this power was grabbed without amendment to the constitution

That empowerment is inherent in the General Welfare clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8.)

What an imbecile................sure, its bureaucrats duty to fulfill your every need and want......