" Personal Responsibility," a conservative mantra- or is it??

[dblack]

Ooooh...you've misunderstood me. I don't advocate forcing others to buy corporate health insurance.

Thank you for correcting me. In any case, I do think it's a mistake to hand us over to the insurance industry as so much livestock. The mandate is a blatant abuse of government power and another example of Democrat/Republican corporatism.

Demand for cheap healthcare. That interests me. That's going to be difficult as long as physicians have to pay huge portions of their salaries for malpractice insurance. And the WORK involved! JEEZ! One patient contact for me, at my level (if the patient is very sick, or injured) is AT LEAST and hour and a half of documentation. And this is to avoid lawsuits, and to prove your competency to the state in which one is licensed, and to your employer-where there are usually people hired to check documentation to make sure that providers aren't killing patients. (more $$$) We're not going to work for free.

And then there are hospitals who eat the cost of uncompensated care. My understanding is that these medical centers get private grants, and government grants....so we all pay for it.

But the demand for cheaper healthcare. How could we go about bringing that to fruition?

Well, I'll wager that most of your patients either have insurance, or can't afford to walk through the your door. If they have insurance, they don't care how much you're charging, and if they don't they simply avoid your services until they are desperate enough to qualify for aid or free ER treatment. The people left who can pay, and aren't covered with low deductible policies, do represent a genuine demand for low-cost care but there aren't enough of them to have an impact. We need more people paying for more of their care out of pocket and the frustrating irony of the mandate is that it pursues the exactly the opposite goal.

So that leaves us with the counter-intuitive solution of discouraging insurance coverage rather than mandating it. We need everyone who can pay for health care out-of-pocket doing so. Then we'll restore demand for better bargains on health care. It will also provide in incentive to re-examine regulations that (like those you mention above) add to the cost of doing business as a doctor.

I'm not necessarily saying we should go without insurance altogether, but we should pay for as little of it as we can possible manage, preferring cheaper catastrophic plans to expensive plans. The later aren't cost effective anyway and provide only the illusion of savings via low deductibles.

 

[dblack]

This has nothing to do with concern about ‘personal responsibility’ or an ‘over-reaching’ Federal government, it has to do with the president’s enemies attacking his premiere legislative accomplishment in an effort to realize some perceived political advantage.

I think you're missing the boat if you write it off as merely political opposition. Granted, it's definitely that for many of the politicians in question, given that (as many have pointed out) Republicans came up with the idea in the first place. But I was howling when Romney signed off on this crap in Massachusetts. I was worried because I figured the insurance industry would do the same thing they did with auto-liability insurance and push it through most every state-house in the country, one-by-one. Little did I know that they'd end up leap-frogging all that. By convincing Obama to flop in the mandate, they're attempting to install themselves as a defacto branch of the federal government, complete with the power to tax us.

 

[mskafka]

"...blatant abuse of government power and another example of Democrat/Republican corporatism."

I advocated for "medicare for all" for a long time. But little by little, my faith in that potential program has begun to wane. The insider trading by our gov't, the campaign contributions from private insurance companies to politicians (not that many of these people supported gov't insurance anyway), and just the weird things that they are constantly being caught doing: i.e.-taking pictures of their weenies, stomping the floor underneath the adjacent bathroom stall, and so on...leaves me wondering if these people are capable of legislating something that will work.

Oh wait...they aren't capable of legislating. How much have they actually accomplished with the constant pissing contests (between the house and senate) over the last year? The last count I got was 2. Surely there are more than that, now.

You have to laugh, at the audacity of some of these people.

 

[mskafka]

OHHHHH! And we must not forget the effectiveness of the SEC in catching Bernie Madoff before he swindled his "clients" out of $60 billion. Oh wait....they didn't.

In all fairness though, there are some gov't. programs that work.

 

[dblack]

"...blatant abuse of government power and another example of Democrat/Republican corporatism."

I advocated for "medicare for all" for a long time.

When Obama was elected, this is what I was "hoping" for. Actually, I don't advocate that approach for various reasons, but things were/are so screwed up in the health care market I didn't figure Congress could possible make things worse. They sure proved me wrong!

 

[dblack]

In all fairness though, there are some gov't. programs that work.

True enough. If we are going to make government responsible for health care, I'd like to see something along the lines of what we've done with public education. Localized as much as possible and funded as much as possible by the people benefiting from the service.

 

[mskafka]

The thrust of your OP seems to be a mandate to force personal responsibility for healthcare, which really isn't possible. Be nice if we could, but we just don't have the money any more. Not everyone can shoulder that burden, some can't due to a disability of some kind, some can't because they're unemployed, some can't cuz they don't make enough to cover their necessities and pay a healthcare insurance premium. As a society, we're not going to refuse them care, and in that process some others who are less deserving get a free ride.

I'm personally responsible only for myself and my family. I accept that responsibility, and also the collective responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves. But I do not accept the responsibility to care for those who could take care of themselves but choose not to. It gets hard sometimes to determine where the line is between those who deserve it and those who don't.

As much as I care about personal responsibility, I also care about freedom of choice. I cannot agree to a gov't mandate to carry health insurance, that is a choice for which there should be consequences. Certainly we do not allow people to die in the streets, that's why we mandate hospitals provide emergency care. Other than that, I don't feel responsible for someone else's decision. And it's not like they don't have clinics and providers that may help regardless of the ability to pay. It's on the uninsured person to find a way, IMHO.

Ignorant progressive know nothing about health or biology...

It's funny how legislators have become medical doctors all of a sudden.....

So biology was your undergrad degree, and you then went to medical school? And then at least 3 years of residency? I'm sorry....I had no idea that you were a physician.

 

[mskafka]

"...blatant abuse of government power and another example of Democrat/Republican corporatism."

I advocated for "medicare for all" for a long time.

When Obama was elected, this is what I was "hoping" for. Actually, I don't advocate that approach for various reasons, but things were/are so screwed up in the health care market I didn't figure Congress could possible make things worse. They sure proved me wrong!

Something has to be done. It just doesn't seem to be sinking in to people that when the poor, or whoever is unable to pay their medical bills.... WE will be paying them one way or the other. So whether we have a single-payer gov't system, or leave the uninsured to their own devices, we are going to make up the cost difference.

 

[Intense]

Then quit pretending it is

How about you quit pretending that you are 9 years old and act your age?

 

[mskafka]

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news; but if any of you are one of those people who doesn't have health insurance because you're convinced that NOTHING will ever happen to you-I hope that you say a prayer before you drive to work every morning, never break the speed limit, walk around constantly in a haz-mat suit, never ride a motorcycle or ATV, have no family history of cancer, heart disease, hypertension (or other or the top American killers), diabetes....

You should probably lock yourself in your house and live in a bubble, because illness and injury will eventually come knocking. And it's always when you least expect it. Not too bright.

 

[dblack]

Something has to be done. It just doesn't seem to be sinking in to people that when the poor, or whoever is unable to pay their medical bills.... WE will be paying them one way or the other. So whether we have a single-payer gov't system, or leave the uninsured to their own devices, we are going to make up the cost difference.

Yeah. But it seems to me, the issue of how to care for the poor is largely separate from what to do about health care inflation. And ill-considered solutions to either problem can make the other even worse.

 

[Intense]

Definition of mandate:

'A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court; a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey."

Did you know that wearing clothing in public is a mandate in all 50 states??

Did you know that having a valid driver's licence to drive a car- is a mandate in most states??

Did you know that it is mandated that an individual provides care for their children, housing, food and clothing or be jailed for neglect?

Conservatives "tout" personal responsibility, yet are reluctant to enforce it with a mandate. Do they think they can wish it true?

I am totally against Obamacare as it is a federal takeover of healthcare, but I am not against a state mandate and state control of healthcare. Personally, I have become sick and tired of paying for people who show up in our emergency rooms, drove their new car there, come in with the latest version of the I-pad, while I pick up the tab for their medical costs through higher premiums and higher taxes. What say you? Are you a conservative who believes in " personal responsibility," and if so, how are you going to implement "personal responsibility," when it comes to health care without a mandate to do so? Wish it true?

Blaming the current mess on Conservatives is total bullshit Maple. Plenty of blame to go around, if you want to play that game. When you are finished, you might try looking into bringing the costs down, rather than trying to justify the gouging, the bureaucracy, and the utter bullshit that surrounds us now.

 

[freedombecki]

Personal responsibility is a moral value and it has nothing to do with which side of the isle your on.

Absolutely! Said well.

 

[JoeB131]

As long as there are as many uninsured people as there are now, we are going to pay for their healthcare. When the uninsured go to the ER to get treatment for a sinus infection...if that individual has no health insurance, and he/she is unable or unwilling to pay the balance-who pays it? WE DO! It comes in the form of higher costs for the rest of us.

Do I think that government-run health insurance for all is good? No, not really. With some of the gov't programs of the past...this would take a huge leap of faith for all of us.

What I would like to know is this: Are those of you opposed to health insurance for all, opposed because you don't want your taxes increased? Or are you concerned about wait times to get care? Both will go up.

Most of it is apprehension at the thought of the government being capable of running something effciently, I suspect. But then one wonders: if the costs of healthcare are regularly being paid as they are supposed to be paid, would the cost of healthcare not decrease per person...that is, minus the tax increases? Please don't use the British or Canadian example. What do you think, hypothetically?

I think the problem with that is that hypothetically, if you had it all for free, people would grab it with both hands.

If they didn't have to make a co-payment or anything, they would go to the doctor for every sniffle. Unless you ration it.

The thing is, everything is a tradeoff. You could have 100% coverage, but you'd have to control prices, which would in turn mean the best and brightest wouldn't necessarily go into medicine. FOr instance, when I used to deal with my last company's Canadian branches, the manager of that branch lamented his daughter just got her nursing degree and was probably going to move to "the States" for the better money.

 

[mskafka]

As long as there are as many uninsured people as there are now, we are going to pay for their healthcare. When the uninsured go to the ER to get treatment for a sinus infection...if that individual has no health insurance, and he/she is unable or unwilling to pay the balance-who pays it? WE DO! It comes in the form of higher costs for the rest of us.

Do I think that government-run health insurance for all is good? No, not really. With some of the gov't programs of the past...this would take a huge leap of faith for all of us.

What I would like to know is this: Are those of you opposed to health insurance for all, opposed because you don't want your taxes increased? Or are you concerned about wait times to get care? Both will go up.

Most of it is apprehension at the thought of the government being capable of running something effciently, I suspect. But then one wonders: if the costs of healthcare are regularly being paid as they are supposed to be paid, would the cost of healthcare not decrease per person...that is, minus the tax increases? Please don't use the British or Canadian example. What do you think, hypothetically?

I think the problem with that is that hypothetically, if you had it all for free, people would grab it with both hands.

If they didn't have to make a co-payment or anything, they would go to the doctor for every sniffle. Unless you ration it.

The thing is, everything is a tradeoff. You could have 100% coverage, but you'd have to control prices, which would in turn mean the best and brightest wouldn't necessarily go into medicine. FOr instance, when I used to deal with my last company's Canadian branches, the manager of that branch lamented his daughter just got her nursing degree and was probably going to move to "the States" for the better money.

Well, even "free" healthcare isn't free. We all know that this will mean higher taxes for all of us. But then, we're already paying for the uninsured now.

And on the brighter side of things-if more people who are uninsured have access to health insurance, then perhaps they wouldn't be neglecting that hypertension that they haven't been treating for the last 10 years...which will ultimately lead to renal failure, strokes, etc...which will then lead to total disability which =medicaid, social security, and obviously the inability to work. Or maybe they will start getting treatment for diabetes, which will lead to decubitus ulcers on their feet-which left untreated will lead to foot or leg amputations. More disability, and eventual probable renal dialysis.

If some of these people could get the care that they are lacking, perhaps they would feel physically better, and be more productive members of society. To be crude, diabetes makes a person feel like concentrated ass. And untreated....must be hell on earth.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'd still like to point out that regardless of being for or against the mandate it has NOTHING to do with an individuals level of responsibility for themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

it is not a takeover of the healthcare system no matter how many times you repete that lie

If it's not a takeover of healthcare, then what is it? What are all those regulations for, to leave healthcare alone?

 

[mskafka]

I'd still like to point out that regardless of being for or against the mandate it has NOTHING to do with an individuals level of responsibility for themselves.

Merkin, everyone has responsibility for themselves. But there comes a time in many people's lives-after they have been the poster child for responsibility-that things go wrong. Cancer, paralysis secondary to an accident, etc..which lead to astronomical medical bills which the average person doesn't have the money to pay. A motorcycle accident with a multiple surgeries, a month in intensive care, at least a month in a rehabilitation facility....hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily. Then comes the foreclosure, vehicle repossession, the individual's inability to speak or walk...let alone work.

What do we do with these people? I know...it sounds very bleeding heart. At this point, are these people capable of personal responsibility?

I guess it's to the project housing for them. Or if they can sit upright in a wheelchair, underneath a bridge will protect them from some of the elements.

Seriously. How do we handle this? I hear all this boasting about American Exceptionalism, and how its meaning has been bastardized to mean superiority. So in that definition, are we so exceptional?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'd still like to point out that regardless of being for or against the mandate it has NOTHING to do with an individuals level of responsibility for themselves.

Merkin, everyone has responsibility for themselves. But there comes a time in many people's lives-after they have been the poster child for responsibility-that things go wrong. Cancer, paralysis secondary to an accident, etc..which lead to astronomical medical bills which the average person doesn't have the money to pay. A motorcycle accident with a multiple surgeries, a month in intensive care, at least a month in a rehabilitation facility....hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily. Then comes the foreclosure, vehicle repossession, the individual's inability to speak or walk...let alone work.

What do we do with these people? I know...it sounds very bleeding heart. At this point, are these people capable of personal responsibility?

I guess it's to the project housing for them. Or if they can sit upright in a wheelchair, underneath a bridge will protect them from some of the elements.

Seriously. How do we handle this? I hear all this boasting about American Exceptionalism, and how its meaning has been bastardized to mean superiority. So in that definition, are we so exceptional?

Those rare cases that you speak of are taken care of. They mostly always have. Forcing everyone to purchase a privately held and sold commodity is not the solution. In fact I imagine it will be deemed illegal.

You simply can't fix or save everyone or everything. My grandmother was blind from the age of 6. Back when there were no schools for the blind or big govt programs to take care of them. Then at 50 major medical problems set in. From 75 to 80 I took care of her in my home. She led a full life and it didn't require Obama to save her.

 

[mskafka]

I'd still like to point out that regardless of being for or against the mandate it has NOTHING to do with an individuals level of responsibility for themselves.

Merkin, everyone has responsibility for themselves. But there comes a time in many people's lives-after they have been the poster child for responsibility-that things go wrong. Cancer, paralysis secondary to an accident, etc..which lead to astronomical medical bills which the average person doesn't have the money to pay. A motorcycle accident with a multiple surgeries, a month in intensive care, at least a month in a rehabilitation facility....hundreds of thousands of dollars, easily. Then comes the foreclosure, vehicle repossession, the individual's inability to speak or walk...let alone work.

What do we do with these people? I know...it sounds very bleeding heart. At this point, are these people capable of personal responsibility?

I guess it's to the project housing for them. Or if they can sit upright in a wheelchair, underneath a bridge will protect them from some of the elements.

Seriously. How do we handle this? I hear all this boasting about American Exceptionalism, and how its meaning has been bastardized to mean superiority. So in that definition, are we so exceptional?

Those rare cases that you speak of are taken care of. They mostly always have. Forcing everyone to purchase a privately held and sold commodity is not the solution. In fact I imagine it will be deemed illegal.

You simply can't fix or save everyone or everything. My grandmother was blind from the age of 6. Back when there were no schools for the blind or big govt programs to take care of them. Then at 50 major medical problems set in. From 75 to 80 I took care of her in my home. She led a full life and it didn't require Obama to save her.

That's admirable of you. But would you disagree that schools for the blind are a good thing?

I will agree that it isn't right for people to be forced to buy health insurance...unless others are having to pay the bills that these individuals are unable to pay themselves.

Yes, people should be allowed to be stupid and play Russian Roulette with their health. Why not? So you don't advocate having people insure themselves, or a single-payer system?

This would probably partially explain why I and my coworkers didn't get a raise 3 years ago, and have gotten marginal raises since. The shit rolls downhill, and when patients don't pay, we don't get paid. How many people are uninsured in this country right now? It's was about 16% in 2010. One has to wonder how many of those 16% became seriously ill while uninsured.

What are your answers?