For those who said forcing Americans to buy private insurance was Unconstitutional...

[Quantum Windbag]

Same link.....Or funding if they meet certain goals.

shrug like i said if we use your "terminology" you are correct,but if we understand the context we see that you are not.

The government intends to track patient spending for 90 days after the patient leaves the hospital, and ding said hospital based on spending they have no control over. You can call that funding if you want to, but that would be a very long stretch of the word.

ok thats nice, but has nothing to do with what i quoted.

Only because you are focusing on a small part of the government's attempts to control spending.

 

[Trajan]

If you don't buy it, you lose the entire amount you've paid into Medicare for your entire working life.

That's a bigger fine than the one in so-called Obamacare.

so you don't sppt. enactment of means testing and its results?

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

translation: I got caught on my shit again, soooooo let me reset by pretending I didn't say what I said...

 

[whitehall]

Funny how lefties have perverted the word "choice" (murder of the unborn) to such an extent that they don't even understand what freedom (of choice) means anymore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ok thats nice, but has nothing to do with what i quoted.

Only because you are focusing on a small part of the government's attempts to control spending.

no i am focusing on that fact you said they dont fund. I googled it and found that they do. thats it, nothing more, nothing less.

And said hospitals are suing the federal government to stop cuts in Meicaid signed into law by Obama last year, yet, for some reason, the Republicans are getting blamed for these cuts. I do not consider Medicaid payments to be funding in the same way that property taxes are. If you want to quibble and insist that hospitals are entitled to payments for patients simply because they exist, feel free. I see the problem as more of them trying to force the government to pay for hoped for increases than actually needing the money.

 

[daveman]

Ok then what happens to the people who opt out?

What does a emergency dr do when a patient is brought in without any knowledge of wether the person opted out or not?

They have to be treated if it is an emergency, just like they do now. Pass the buck.

Which is why the ONLY way to fix our system is to have EVERYONE covered.

Then you'll have to accept the rationing of care and committees deciding who's worthy of saving.

You object to insurance companies doing that, but you'll accept it from the government.

 

[daveman]

Why aren't you saying that about Ryan's kill-Medicare plan?

Which forces seniors to buy private insurance...

Ummm...what part of "you can if you want to" is forcing them?

Hmmm. Nothing. Looks like you fail.

If you don't buy it, you lose the entire amount you've paid into Medicare for your entire working life.

That's a bigger fine than the one in so-called Obamacare.

I'll lose it anyway if Medicare is allowed to continue as is, as the Democrats want, because the whole damn thing is going to collapse.

 

[daveman]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. We already have County Hospitals. Who said anything about eliminating those hospitals?

I'm not sure there's a movement to purposefully eliminate them. Slashing their funding, on the other hand, has now become part of the GOP health care agenda.

Well, the ones that are left that haven't gone out of business due to illegal immigrants.

 

[daveman]

Forcing people to pay for the care of others is morally wrong.

They only way to do it the moral way is for EVERY adult to help pay...

These two statements are contradictory.

 

[daveman]

How does the Number of transplants done a year tell you anything about how cost effective they are? Many Transplant patients Still do not live very long after the operation. I think that may be where the whole Negligible returns idea came from.

It would be beneficial to look at survival rates after a transplant as opposed to the number of transplants.

It seems to me that Arizona's decision sucks. Especially for those who were on the transplant list one day and off the next. It also seems to me that we as a nation should help those among us who are in the most need and who can deny that someone needing a transplant or they will die is one of those who are in the most need.

But, if Arizona continued to fund transplant loans (and these were loans not medical payments from what I read) that most likely would never be repaid, who will suffer in their place?

Immie

the same kind of person who suffered when a NY authority made a decision to move up Mikey mantle on the transplant list despite the prognosis and his past history.

If I recall correctly, Larry Hagman ruined three livers.

 

[daveman]

Funny how lefties have perverted the word "choice" (murder of the unborn) to such an extent that they don't even understand what freedom (of choice) means anymore.

They support your freedom to choose -- but only if you choose what they tell you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so you don't sppt. enactment of means testing and its results?

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

translation: I got caught on my shit again, soooooo let me reset by pretending I didn't say what I said...

My opinion of means testing has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

Hmm.. well, if the constitutionality is the issue you want to investigate, I'm not sure. There may be legitimate questions about the constitutionality of the Medicare program, but the bait-and-switch of converting Medicare benefits to insurance vouchers doesn't seem like a constitutional question. I do think it's bullshit, however, and just another corporate welfare proposal.

The issue I'm trying to get out here is how the supporters of Ryancare who also claim that the mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional can reconcile those seemingly incompatible positions,

or explain to us why they're not incompatible, or inconsistent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

Hmm.. well, if the constitutionality is the issue you want to investigate, I'm not sure. There may be legitimate questions about the constitutionality of the Medicare program, but the bait-and-switch of converting Medicare benefits to insurance vouchers doesn't seem like a constitutional question. I do think it's bullshit, however, and just another corporate welfare proposal.

The issue I'm trying to get out here is how the supporters of Ryancare who also claim that the mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional can reconcile those seemingly incompatible positions,

or explain to us why they're not incompatible, or inconsistent.

One makes you spend your money to buy something, the other gives you money to buy something.

See the difference? If a person who opposes Ryan's plan can see that surely you can.

 

[JimH52]

So if a person takes their voucher and spends it instead of buying insurance what happens wehn they are rushed to the hospital and taken to the emergency room?

They are treated and we the tax payers get stuck with the bill. Wait...maybe the republicans like this?

 

[JimH52]

Funny how lefties have perverted the word "choice" (murder of the unborn) to such an extent that they don't even understand what freedom (of choice) means anymore.

They support your freedom to choose -- but only if you choose what they tell you.

You mean, like Ryan's voucher program?

 

[Trajan]

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

translation: I got caught on my shit again, soooooo let me reset by pretending I didn't say what I said...

My opinion of means testing has nothing to do with the topic.

Sure it is, your answer to dave makes the argument that if you don’t partake in Ryan’s plan, ergo you lose the ability to partake of the entire medical coverage paid for by the proceeds of the money separated from you via fica…..well, if they means test millions of folks will lose the ability to partake of entire medical coverage paid for by the proceeds of the money separated from them via fica.

Hence the question, do you sppt. Means testing? You are aware that ‘parts’ of Medicare means test already? Are you aware that ryan emphasized same as well? apparently not....

 

[daveman]

Funny how lefties have perverted the word "choice" (murder of the unborn) to such an extent that they don't even understand what freedom (of choice) means anymore.

They support your freedom to choose -- but only if you choose what they tell you.

You mean, like Ryan's voucher program?

No.

 

[NYcarbineer]

translation: I got caught on my shit again, soooooo let me reset by pretending I didn't say what I said...

My opinion of means testing has nothing to do with the topic.

Sure it is, your answer to dave makes the argument that if you don’t partake in Ryan’s plan, ergo you lose the ability to partake of the entire medical coverage paid for by the proceeds of the money separated from you via fica…..well, if they means test millions of folks will lose the ability to partake of entire medical coverage paid for by the proceeds of the money separated from them via fica.

Hence the question, do you sppt. Means testing? You are aware that ‘parts’ of Medicare means test already? Are you aware that ryan emphasized same as well? apparently not....

First of all, I'm not among those who think the Obama mandate is unconstitutional, nor do I think the Ryan mandate is unconstitutional, so I'm not the one holding what may be an inconsistent set of positions. The thread is addressed to those who do.

The issue here is the forcing of seniors to buy a private insurance policy vs. 'Obamacare' forcing people to buy private insurance.

In both cases you either buy, or you suffer a financial penalty. Call it a fine, call it a tax, whatever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hmm.. well, if the constitutionality is the issue you want to investigate, I'm not sure. There may be legitimate questions about the constitutionality of the Medicare program, but the bait-and-switch of converting Medicare benefits to insurance vouchers doesn't seem like a constitutional question. I do think it's bullshit, however, and just another corporate welfare proposal.

The issue I'm trying to get out here is how the supporters of Ryancare who also claim that the mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional can reconcile those seemingly incompatible positions,

or explain to us why they're not incompatible, or inconsistent.

One makes you spend your money to buy something, the other gives you money to buy something.

See the difference? If a person who opposes Ryan's plan can see that surely you can.

No. If you don't buy the insurance, one makes you pay a penalty after the fact (Obamacare) the other simply keeps the money you already paid before the fact.

You are aware that the payroll tax takes money out of every one of your paychecks FOR Medicare, correct? Where do you think the voucher money is going to come from? Thin air?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My opinion of means testing has nothing to do with the topic.

Sure it is, your answer to dave makes the argument that if you don’t partake in Ryan’s plan, ergo you lose the ability to partake of the entire medical coverage paid for by the proceeds of the money separated from you via fica…..well, if they means test millions of folks will lose the ability to partake of entire medical coverage paid for by the proceeds of the money separated from them via fica.

Hence the question, do you sppt. Means testing? You are aware that ‘parts’ of Medicare means test already? Are you aware that ryan emphasized same as well? apparently not....

First of all, I'm not among those who think the Obama mandate is unconstitutional, nor do I think the Ryan mandate is unconstitutional, so I'm not the one holding what may be an inconsistent set of positions. The thread is addressed to those who do.

The issue here is the forcing of seniors to buy a private insurance policy vs. 'Obamacare' forcing people to buy private insurance.

In both cases you either buy, or you suffer a financial penalty. Call it a fine, call it a tax, whatever.

It is not forcing seniors to buy anything, it is providing them money to participate in government controlled insurance pools.