Which Freedoms Lost?

[Paulie]

It's not just about personal liberties, it's about freedom from stifling regulations in business as well.

Liberals only see regulation as beneficial. Somehow it MUST be good for the people if we're holding business back.

I hope someday that liberals can realize the negatives involved in much of today's regulation. How lobbyists typically WRITE those regulations so that competition can be stifled in the marketplace and the biggest companies can thrive.

I think business' should have the same "freedoms" we consumers have - including the "freedom" to pay the consequences of bad decisions.

You mean like FAIL?

Yeah, I agree.

How many businesses did we prop up on our backs recently that otherwise should have had the "freedom to pay the consequences of bad decisions"?

 

[Coyote]

It's not just about personal liberties, it's about freedom from stifling regulations in business as well.

Liberals only see regulation as beneficial. Somehow it MUST be good for the people if we're holding business back.

I hope someday that liberals can realize the negatives involved in much of today's regulation. How lobbyists typically WRITE those regulations so that competition can be stifled in the marketplace and the biggest companies can thrive.

I think business' should have the same "freedoms" we consumers have - including the "freedom" to pay the consequences of bad decisions.

You mean like FAIL?

Yeah, I agree.

How many businesses did we prop up on our backs recently that otherwise should have had the "freedom to pay the consequences of bad decisions"?

Since when?

I think that they should be allowed to fail, but the rest of the economy needs to be protected while they are dismantled.

I also think they should take the same consequences for risky loans as consumers have to. No more bankruptcy bill give-aways.

 

[Paulie]

Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.

No lie.

If anyone needed any proof positive that there's no difference in substance between the remocrats and depublicans need look no further than the exchange of this inane "what freedoms have you lost" yammering point, coinciding with the change of which party is driving the central authoritarian agenda.

Even though that is from PC's post, I doubt she's independent enough politically to recognize specifically the republican role in what you're speaking of.

 

[Oddball]

I think business' should have the same "freedoms" we consumers have - including the "freedom" to pay the consequences of bad decisions.

You mean like FAIL?

Yeah, I agree.

How many businesses did we prop up on our backs recently that otherwise should have had the "freedom to pay the consequences of bad decisions"?

Since when?

I think that they should be allowed to fail, but the rest of the economy needs to be protected while they are dismantled.

I also think they should take the same consequences for risky loans as consumers have to. No more bankruptcy bill give-aways.

Who says they would be dismantled?

If the business is viable under a different model (as the auto business would be), someone would step in, buy that company and run it their way.

 

[Paulie]

I think business' should have the same "freedoms" we consumers have - including the "freedom" to pay the consequences of bad decisions.

You mean like FAIL?

Yeah, I agree.

How many businesses did we prop up on our backs recently that otherwise should have had the "freedom to pay the consequences of bad decisions"?

Since when?

I think that they should be allowed to fail, but the rest of the economy needs to be protected while they are dismantled.

I also think they should take the same consequences for risky loans as consumers have to. No more bankruptcy bill give-aways.

You said they should have the freedom to pay the consequences, and apparently many didn't pay that consequence. In fact, WE paid THEIR consequences instead by footing over a trillion dollars in tax liabilities.

 

[Bern80]

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

Huh? Are you suggesting that these for-profit hospitals simply keep your expenses on their books indefinitely, or until such a time that you feel you can pay them for said services?

For profit companies of all types do offer financing on their goods and services you know. Why is health care looked at as some anomily that simply can't bill people. Of course they can bill people. They bill you for whatever your insurance won't cover. They charge late fees if your late. I know these things are possible because I have experienced them first hand. I have had my hospital divide a bill up over a couple months instead of paying all at once. It can be done. The only thing thats changing, if one so chooses to not carry insurance, is the size of the bill.

 

[Coyote]

Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department?

Except...it wasn't "alleged".....at least according to the 2008 Justice Department's Inspector General report. It found most of the attorney firings were politically motivated and improper

 

[Paulie]

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

Huh? Are you suggesting that these for-profit hospitals simply keep your expenses on their books indefinitely, or until such a time that you feel you can pay them for said services?

For profit companies of all types do offer financing on their goods and services you know. Why is health care looked at as some anomily that simply can't bill people. Of course they can bill people. They bill you for whatever your insurance won't cover. They charge late fees if your late. I know these things are possible because I have experienced them first hand. I have had my hospital divide a bill up over a couple months instead of paying all at once. It can be done. The only thing thats changing, if one so chooses to not carry insurance, is the size of the bill.

I think it's the "size of the bill" that might lead a health provider to not want to take that big a risk in just billing a patient directly.

The debate over HOW we should have to pay is not nearly as important as the debate over how MUCH we should have to pay.

We argue over payment methods, and meanwhile the costs continue to skyrocket.

 

[mattskramer]

Can not deny you is different than can not charge you.

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[VaYank5150]

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that all Americans will be required to buy their own health insurance, it should no longer be needed.

 

[Paulie]

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that all Americans will be required to buy their own health insurance, it should no longer be needed.

You may have agreed with what I said earlier, but that's not in any way me supporting the idea that we should ever be REQUIRED to carry health insurance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Remember the cacophonous wailing of the left over the Bush administration's alleged politicization of the Justice Department? We always knew they were just projecting, but now we have even more proof.

No lie.

If anyone needed any proof positive that there's no difference in substance between the remocrats and depublicans need look no further than the exchange of this inane "what freedoms have you lost" yammering point, coinciding with the change of which party is driving the central authoritarian agenda.

Even though that is from PC's post, I doubt she's independent enough politically to recognize specifically the republican role in what you're speaking of.

You misunderstand the difference between recognize and desire to discuss.

 

[Bern80]

Huh? Are you suggesting that these for-profit hospitals simply keep your expenses on their books indefinitely, or until such a time that you feel you can pay them for said services?

For profit companies of all types do offer financing on their goods and services you know. Why is health care looked at as some anomily that simply can't bill people. Of course they can bill people. They bill you for whatever your insurance won't cover. They charge late fees if your late. I know these things are possible because I have experienced them first hand. I have had my hospital divide a bill up over a couple months instead of paying all at once. It can be done. The only thing thats changing, if one so chooses to not carry insurance, is the size of the bill.

I think it's the "size of the bill" that might lead a health provider to not want to take that big a risk in just billing a patient directly.

The debate over HOW we should have to pay is not nearly as important as the debate over how MUCH we should have to pay.

We argue over payment methods, and meanwhile the costs continue to skyrocket.

I agree. In some cases paying out of pocket can even lower your hospital bills. But not enough the health care reform focused on real practical ways of reducing cost. Or new options for people in terms of how they want to be covered.

An example. Part of my insurance premium covers prescriptions. I happen to find out recently that the loan pill I take was no being covered by insurance. It wasn't that they wouldnt' cover it, it was a glitch or something where the insurance company was covering their part. I didn't notice this because it cost me $10. With insurance it costs me $6. Whoopdee freakin doo. I would love a plain that just covered catastrophic injury or illness and I was responsible out of pocket for the rest. I can handle the $4 extra bucks. Just an example of a way to customize health plans.

 

[Oddball]

No lie.

If anyone needed any proof positive that there's no difference in substance between the remocrats and depublicans need look no further than the exchange of this inane "what freedoms have you lost" yammering point, coinciding with the change of which party is driving the central authoritarian agenda.

Even though that is from PC's post, I doubt she's independent enough politically to recognize specifically the republican role in what you're speaking of.

You misunderstand the difference between recognize and desire to discuss.

Right...I wouldn't want to discuss it if one of my comments had outed me as a party man, either.

Fact remains that the parties don't even have different playbooks...It's the same book that they merely turn over and read from the back of, depending upon who controls the authoritarian apparatus of state.

Another recent and poignant shared blabbering point is "they're just being the party of no, who have no new ideas"...Remember that one making the rounds during the Bush regime?

 

[Paulie]

No lie.

If anyone needed any proof positive that there's no difference in substance between the remocrats and depublicans need look no further than the exchange of this inane "what freedoms have you lost" yammering point, coinciding with the change of which party is driving the central authoritarian agenda.

Even though that is from PC's post, I doubt she's independent enough politically to recognize specifically the republican role in what you're speaking of.

You misunderstand the difference between recognize and desire to discuss.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss it, being as how hyper partisan you are.

 

[VaYank5150]

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that all Americans will be required to buy their own health insurance, it should no longer be needed.

You may have agreed with what I said earlier, but that's not in any way me supporting the idea that we should ever be REQUIRED to carry health insurance.

And that is fair. IF we do not require people to have health insurance, THEN this law needs to be struck down, so the for-profit hospitals can tend to those of us responsible enough to have insurance and/or the ability to pay for the care.

 

[Bern80]

So.....are you saying you know of an emergency room that provides FREE services? If so, please let all of us know.

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it needs to be repealed. Who ends up paying is what needs to be addressed

 

[mattskramer]

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that all Americans will be required to buy their own health insurance, it should no longer be needed.

It will still be needed for those who can't afford health insurance.

 

[mattskramer]

I think you're missing the point. I am not suggesting there are emergency rooms that are free to operate or have free services (however they be paid). I am suggesting that, even though you may not be able to pay for service at the time you need them, doesn't mean they need to let you out of paying for services one way or the other.

I think that what we are talking about is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.

An emergency medical condition is defined as "a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs."

Should this act be repealed?

Read:

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it needs to be repealed. Who ends up paying is what needs to be addressed

The hospital ends up paying. The cost to hospitals results in higher prices for services that other patients can afford.

 

[mattskramer]

Now that all Americans will be required to buy their own health insurance, it should no longer be needed.

You may have agreed with what I said earlier, but that's not in any way me supporting the idea that we should ever be REQUIRED to carry health insurance.

And that is fair. IF we do not require people to have health insurance, THEN this law needs to be struck down, so the for-profit hospitals can tend to those of us responsible enough to have insurance and/or the ability to pay for the care.

But what do we do with emergency patients who can't pay? Have them die outside the door when they have treatable conditions?