BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obama’s health care law unconsti

[Flopper]

Single payer is control of choices, options, quality, access that was NEVER intended to be a role of the Federal government in a nation that values unalienable rights and considers those first above all other concerns. Socialism, facism, and Marxism all presumably put the needs of the most at the forefront and do not recognize unalienable rights. And those eventually create such misery that they transition to dictatorships or totalitarian governments so that the government retains control.

Seems like I've heard this before. Single payer eliminates the insurance companies, that's it. Most people today don't really have a choice of carrier. Because of costs, they have to accept whoever their employer selects. Once on the plan, most people are restricted again by cost to a select network of providers.

As long as we keep arguing about whether government or insurance companies are to be the carrier, focus is drawn away from the major cause of high healthcare cost, the way we delivery healthcare in America.

When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders. Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business. And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.

Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.

The free market system in the deliver of healthcare has been dead for many years and nothing is going to revive it. 82% of our hospitals are nonprofit or government owned. Almost a third of our doctors are salaried and the percent is rising each year. 1 out 3 American's healthcare is partially or fully paid for by the government.

As far as choice goes, you're limited to the insurance carrier your employer picks and to the network of doctors and hospitals the insurance company picks. The insurance company formulary determines the drugs it covers and the procedures it pays for is purely at it's own discretion. Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Blind ideologue, no facts, just dogma:

When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders. Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business. And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.

Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.

Facts, no dogma:

The free market system in the deliver of healthcare has been dead for many years and nothing is going to revive it. 82% of our hospitals are nonprofit or government owned. Almost a third of our doctors are salaried and the percent is rising each year. 1 out 3 American's healthcare is partially or fully paid for by the government.

As far as choice goes, you're limited to the insurance carrier your employer picks and to the network of doctors and hospitals the insurance company picks. The insurance company formulary determines the drugs it covers and the procedures it pays for is purely at it's own discretion. Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.

Correct.

The blind adherence to rightist dogma will be the end of this Nation.

 

[Dude111]

BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obama’s health care law unconstitutional

Good because IT IS!!

 

[dblack]

Good because IT IS!!

I'm much more hopeful about getting it turned around than I've been in the past. I'm reading more and more from independents and Democrats indicating that it's not just the Obama-haters who realize that the mandate is a really bad idea. At the same time we could see the court set some clear constraints around the abuse of the commerce clause as the all-purpose tool to expand the scope of federal government. Call me an optimist, but this whole fiasco could produce some pretty decent results in terms of constitutional precedent.

 

[Flopper]

Good because IT IS!!

I'm much more hopeful about getting it turned around than I've been in the past. I'm reading more and more from independents and Democrats indicating that it's not just the Obama-haters who realize that the mandate is a really bad idea. At the same time we could see the court set some clear constraints around the abuse of the commerce clause as the all-purpose tool to expand the scope of federal government. Call me an optimist, but this whole fiasco could produce some pretty decent results in terms of constitutional precedent.

If the mandate is overturned, the government can do what they did with the Medicare Part D program. If you don't sign up initially, you pay more latter for insurance.

 

[Patrick2]

Seems like I've heard this before. Single payer eliminates the insurance companies, that's it. Most people today don't really have a choice of carrier. Because of costs, they have to accept whoever their employer selects. Once on the plan, most people are restricted again by cost to a select network of providers.

As long as we keep arguing about whether government or insurance companies are to be the carrier, focus is drawn away from the major cause of high healthcare cost, the way we delivery healthcare in America.

When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders. Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business. And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.

Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.

The free market system in the deliver of healthcare has been dead for many years and nothing is going to revive it. 82% of our hospitals are nonprofit or government owned. Almost a third of our doctors are salaried and the percent is rising each year.

How does that imply it's not a free market?

1 out 3 American's healthcare is partially or fully paid for by the government.

As far as choice goes, you're limited to the insurance carrier your employer picks and to the network of doctors and hospitals the insurance company picks. The insurance company formulary determines the drugs it covers and the procedures it pays for is purely at it's own discretion.

So what? If you don't like their product, don't buy it. Does not imply not a free market.

Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.

Just like what kind of car you can buy, and lots of other things, right?

 

[BoycottTheday]

If the mandate is overturned, the government can do what they did with the Medicare Part D program. If you don't sign up initially, you pay more latter for insurance.

They can do more than that.



Feds Get Real-Time Access to Patient Bank Accounts Under ObamaCare

 

[Greenbeard]

They can do more than that.

Feds Get Real-Time Access to Patient Bank Accounts Under ObamaCare

Some bullshit never dies, does it? Wonderful example of a zombie lie.

 

[dblack]

If the mandate is overturned, the government can do what they did with the Medicare Part D program. If you don't sign up initially, you pay more latter for insurance.

There's a wide variety of things they could do that would be better than the mandate, including nothing at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Blind ideologue, no facts, just dogma:

When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders. Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business. And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.

Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.

Facts, no dogma:

The free market system in the deliver of healthcare has been dead for many years and nothing is going to revive it. 82% of our hospitals are nonprofit or government owned. Almost a third of our doctors are salaried and the percent is rising each year. 1 out 3 American's healthcare is partially or fully paid for by the government.

As far as choice goes, you're limited to the insurance carrier your employer picks and to the network of doctors and hospitals the insurance company picks. The insurance company formulary determines the drugs it covers and the procedures it pays for is purely at it's own discretion. Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.

Correct.

The blind adherence to rightist dogma will be the end of this Nation.

Amazing that rightist dogma will ruin the nation though it made this nation the greatest the world has ever known but leftist dogma, without any way to back it up, is spot on.

Prejudice, ideology, and tunnel vision is an amazing thing.

 

[saveliberty]

Anyone disagree that leftist policies are in play throughout Western Europe? Please explain how those economic policies are helping?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Anyone disagree that leftist policies are in play throughout Western Europe? Please explain how those economic policies are helping?

How can anyone do that with a straight face?

 

[BoycottTheday]

Anyone disagree that leftist policies are in play throughout Western Europe? Please explain how those economic policies are helping?

How can anyone do that with a straight face?

Cant a lefty doit with a gay face?




Dont get mad @ me, gay used to mean happy

 

[Flopper]

When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders. Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business. And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.

Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.

How does that imply it's not a free market?



So what? If you don't like their product, don't buy it. Does not imply not a free market.

Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.

Just like what kind of car you can buy, and lots of other things, right?

I really meant a competitive market, not a free market. A market that is dominated by nonprofits and government owned facilities lacks the profit motive and competitiveness of profit orientated business. This has been the model for hospitals since the colonial days.

Not buying it, is not much of option when the alternative is dying.

 

[BoycottTheday]

Whats so bad about dying?

 

[Flopper]

Whats so bad about dying?

can't post anymore

 

[Flopper]

All good points CleverGirl.

As I posted earlier, from Day One that Medicare went into effect, we saw medical providers take advantage of government payments that would not be questioned. Until then we all got copies of our medical bills whether at the doctors office or emergency room or hospital. We could SEE charges for things we never asked for or received and would question them and they were taken off. Private insurance companies also scrutinized the bills and challenged anything that looked out of line.

Enter government medicine with artificially capped payments but unchallenged 'unnecessary medical care/treatment' and the whole system was almost immediately skewed. No longer market driven, the government determined costs and payments which were artificially low requiring medical providers/suppliers to shift costs to others driving everybody's out of pocket costs and insurance premiums higher.

Let the free market work and honest costs will be involved.

As for litigation, it just didn't happen except in cases of gross negligence. The doctor didn't order any tests or treatment that were not medically indicated. Defensive medicine was unnecessary and now that alone accounts for almost half of all medical costs outside of surgical, cancer treatment, and other unusually costly care.

Enter government medicine and more and more unnecessary tests ordered because the government would pay for them and that became the norm. A doctor who didn't order the tests would be challenged as negligent. A whole new cottage industry for the legal profession cropped up. Ambulance chasers weren't just after people involved in accidents any more but were looking for ANY possible oversight or ommission as an excuse to sue doctors and other medical professionals. Malpractice insurance went through the roof and half our costs are now for stuff that isn't medically indicated but they don't dare not give it to us.

All that would be required is some legal cover. The doctor offers the treatment or test or whatever along with his professional opinion whether it is medically indicated, the patient has the right to accept or decline, it is noted in the chart, and the doctor won't be sued for not ordering a test that isn't medically indicated via the symptoms or circumstances.

Foxfyre, I enjoy reading your post, although I can't say I agree. What is missing from your posts, at least from the ones I have read, you don't address how you would take government out of healthcare. With the government paying full or partial payment of a hundred million people's healthcare, congress can not just cut it off. Even a gradually phase out would not only be opposed by the left, but all those that are benefiting from the system, which would include a number from the right. This is why I believe, you must work withing the current system, with all of it's shortcoming

 

[dblack]

Foxfyre, I enjoy reading your post, although I can't say I agree. What is missing from your posts, at least from the ones I have read, you don't address how you would take government out of healthcare. With the government paying full or partial payment of a hundred million people's healthcare, congress can not just cut it off. Even a gradually phase out would not only be opposed by the left, but all those that are benefiting from the system, which would include a number from the right. This is why I believe, you must work withing the current system, with all of it's shortcoming

I'm not clear on what you're getting at here. Are you agreeing we should get government out of health care? (and just pointing out that it would difficult) Or are you saying it would be difficult, so we shouldn't try?

We'd get government out of health care by first recognizing that it's a problem. Until we can do that, it won't change. We'll continue down this same path and see just how bad it gets.

 

[Flopper]

Foxfyre, I enjoy reading your post, although I can't say I agree. What is missing from your posts, at least from the ones I have read, you don't address how you would take government out of healthcare. With the government paying full or partial payment of a hundred million people's healthcare, congress can not just cut it off. Even a gradually phase out would not only be opposed by the left, but all those that are benefiting from the system, which would include a number from the right. This is why I believe, you must work withing the current system, with all of it's shortcoming

I'm not clear on what you're getting at here. Are you agreeing we should get government out of health care? (and just pointing out that it would difficult) Or are you saying it would be difficult, so we shouldn't try?

We'd get government out of health care by first recognizing that it's a problem. Until we can do that, it won't change. We'll continue down this same path and see just how bad it gets.

No, I don't think we should get government out of healthcare but that wasn't my point. Many posts go on and on about the evils of government in healthcare and just about everything else, yet no one seems to offer any sensible way of separating the two.

It's not that I think it would be difficult, I think it would be almost impossible under our current form of government. Government involvement in healthcare started when Teddy Roosevelt campaigned for universal healthcare and has grown steadily for a hundred years. Today a third of the population receives some healthcare assistance from the government. I think government support of healthcare has gone too far to reverse it. We would be better off attempting to improve the current system, than wasting the effort trying to turn the clock back a hundred years.

 

[waltky]

Couple of guests on Charlie Rose tonight talking about the economy...

... one made the point that its going to take consumer demand to get the economy going again...

... that got me to thinking...

... what will happen to consumer demand when the premiums of Obamacare demand to be paid?

Seems to me that will shunt money from most peoples' pocketbooks away from buying goods and services...

.. to paying the premiums instead of spurring the economy.