Why can't we have an opt-out clause

[Skull Pilot]

The point that you missed was why do people with many rug rats pay a lesser portion of their income for government services when they obviously use more government services than one with no kids who just because he has no kids has the privilege of having the government confiscate a larger percentage of his income?

Because legislatures act for the greater good. Our country has been centered around the family structure since its beginnings. School taxes are based on property values and income....not the number of kids you send.

Not fair...but nobody ever said life was fair

But the federal department of education (which was never a power granted in the Constitution) funded by the taxes the government confiscates from everyone.

And again the person who pumps out the puppies gets to pay less than a person with no kids.

So then the next time you libby/ progressives start clamoring that rich people should pay higher taxes because it's fair, you'll accept the reply:

"Who ever said life was fair" and stop the whining right?

 

[Xenophon]

Why can't we legislate an state level opt-out for S.S., medicade, and this healthcare program? People in states that do want these programs can elect to have them but people in states that don't want to participate in them can opt-out.

Its a freedom thing, as in you don't have any.

 

[Contumacious]

Why can't we legislate an state level opt-out for S.S., medicade, and this healthcare program? People in states that do want these programs can elect to have them but people in states that don't want to participate in them can opt-out.

HUH?

The US is no longer a free country. Marxism is dictatorial and tyrannical.

.

 

[jdavij2003]

Well, by all means let the insurance companies, car manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. run rampant without any regulation. Jeez....we have regulation BECAUSE of the past behaviors of for-profit companies.

And by the way, I work for a local government and I see horse-trading going on all the time, on both sides of the aisle. It's the way government is run and it SUCKS.

Those companies should NOT be allowed to run rampant. There should be some regulation within those companies from our government to protect us. I don't think that the regulation should include forcing all citizens to pay for health insurance or be fined if we choose not to. Regulate the insurance companies, not the consumer.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, by all means let the insurance companies, car manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. run rampant without any regulation. Jeez....we have regulation BECAUSE of the past behaviors of for-profit companies.

And by the way, I work for a local government and I see horse-trading going on all the time, on both sides of the aisle. It's the way government is run and it SUCKS.

Those companies should NOT be allowed to run rampant. There should be some regulation within those companies from our government to protect us. I don't think that the regulation should include forcing all citizens to pay for health insurance or be fined if we choose not to. Regulate the insurance companies, not the consumer.

Can you answer a question for me?

Are you willing to give up your existing healthcare coverage and go through life without it?

 

[jdavij2003]

And what's worse, is that the provider need not negotiate with the paying customer for each transaction. They negotiate a contract price with the insurer, which is inflated because the provider already knows he has to offer a discount on the private insurer's contract and also cover his losses on the government's under-payments, and voila!... the cash-paying customer gets stuck with the inflated, pre-discount price.

I work for a privately owned physical therapy provider. When a customer comes in for cash-pay service, we give them a 40% discount on the service if they pay same-day. The patients do NOT get a 40% discount if they choose not pay same-day, and the reason for that is because if you see a patient and then send them a bill, most times, you never see that money. The 40% is an incentive to get paid.

Don't forget that medical offices also lose a lot of money. MANY patients do not pay their medical bills. This goes for those with or without insurance. Deductibles and co-insurances can be quite high, and the medical provider does not know, on the day of the patient visit, exactly how much the insurance company will put into the patient responsibility. So the patient comes in, gets his or her treatment, and the provider may never see them again. A bill is sent to the patient after payment is received from the insurance company. Some patients pay their bills. Many do not.

And THAT also contributes to the cost of medical care. Those of us who pay our bills have to help make up for all that is lost when others don't take responsibility for what they owe.

 

[jdavij2003]

Can you answer a question for me?

Are you willing to give up your existing healthcare coverage and go through life without it?

I didn't have any health insurance from the time I left college when I was 20 until I was hired into the company I work for now, when I was 23. I was fine with that. I am a young, healthy adult, and if I leave the job I currently have, I will once again go without insurance.

I will purchase insurance when I am ready to have children. I will keep purchasing insurance, because I'm only going to get older and sooner or later will probably encounter some sort of medical problem.

The point is, I shouldn't be forced to have insurance coverage. No one should. People aren't forced to have homeowner's insurance, are they (except when there is a mortgage, and that is required by the lender)? Having a place to live is an essential of life, just as health care is.

The reason opting not to have health insurance is a problem is because when people don't have insurance, they go to the ER when they get sick and the hospital ends up eating the loss. Why can un-insured (or even those who are insured) get away with not paying their health care bills? You can't not pay your mortgage, they'll take your house away.

 

[rightwinger]

And what's worse, is that the provider need not negotiate with the paying customer for each transaction. They negotiate a contract price with the insurer, which is inflated because the provider already knows he has to offer a discount on the private insurer's contract and also cover his losses on the government's under-payments, and voila!... the cash-paying customer gets stuck with the inflated, pre-discount price.

I work for a privately owned physical therapy provider. When a customer comes in for cash-pay service, we give them a 40% discount on the service if they pay same-day. The patients do NOT get a 40% discount if they choose not pay same-day, and the reason for that is because if you see a patient and then send them a bill, most times, you never see that money. The 40% is an incentive to get paid.

Don't forget that medical offices also lose a lot of money. MANY patients do not pay their medical bills. This goes for those with or without insurance. Deductibles and co-insurances can be quite high, and the medical provider does not know, on the day of the patient visit, exactly how much the insurance company will put into the patient responsibility. So the patient comes in, gets his or her treatment, and the provider may never see them again. A bill is sent to the patient after payment is received from the insurance company. Some patients pay their bills. Many do not.

And THAT also contributes to the cost of medical care. Those of us who pay our bills have to help make up for all that is lost when others don't take responsibility for what they owe.

I've been there. Stuck in a war between the doctors and the insurance company.

You receive treatment from a doctor who is supposedly an approved provider for your plan. The doctor submits a bill and the insurance company responds that his fees are not within the allowable coverage for that procedure and pays a partial amount.
The doctor then turns around and tells the patient to pay the rest. You are stuck between the two...arguing with the doctor on why is fee is above the allowable amount and with the insurer because they won't pay the bill.

They both point their finger at you and say....shut up and pay

 

[jdavij2003]

I've been there. Stuck in a war between the doctors and the insurance company.

You receive treatment from a doctor who is supposedly an approved provider for your plan. The doctor submits a bill and the insurance company responds that his fees are not within the allowable coverage for that procedure and pays a partial amount.
The doctor then turns around and tells the patient to pay the rest. You are stuck between the two...arguing with the doctor on why is fee is above the allowable amount and with the insurer because they won't pay the bill.

They both point their finger at you and say....shut up and pay

The only thing that the medical provider bills the patient for is the amount that the insurance company says is the patient's responsibility. It is all written into the plan that the patient has purchased. Medical offices write off thousands of dollars from the original bill sent to the insurance company. In the physical therapy world, we may bill the insurance company $250 for an hour session. If the patient has a deductible, the insurance company will send an "Explanation of Benefits" to the provider and the patient outlining the original bill and the amount that the patient owes based on the contracted fees negotiated between the provider and the insurance company.
The patient then gets a bill for $100 from the provider, and the provider writes off the other $150.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks....so i think I get it now

We elect people at the local, state and federal level to represent us. Those elected officials get to decide what is best for the society as a whole. If we are not happy with what they did, we get to elect someone else.

Is that what the Constitution is all about??

No. The people at the local, state, and federal levels who we elect to represent us, can't just do whatever the fuck they want. They must legislate from within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution, from within the parameters of their state constitution, and from within their local charters.

Social Security was ruled constitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahhhh...I see. What if we established health care for foreign citizens??

*head exploding*

We already did in Iraq and Afghanistan....aren't you proud?

But if Americans want healthcare they are being.....LAZY

I remember a few years ago on a forum the conservatives started a good news from Iraq thread, to counter all the bad news that was coming out.

It wasn't uncommon to see reports of hospitals and schools built or restored. I guess the way to get conservatives to support spending on AMERICAN healthcare is let them bomb places into the stone age first.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Ahhhh...I see. What if we established health care for foreign citizens??

*head exploding*

We already did in Iraq and Afghanistan....aren't you proud?

But if Americans want healthcare they are being.....LAZY

I remember a few years ago on a forum the conservatives started a good news from Iraq thread, to counter all the bad news that was coming out.

It wasn't uncommon to see reports of hospitals and schools built or restored. I guess the way to get conservatives to support spending on AMERICAN healthcare is let them bomb places into the stone age first.

Forcing us to buy more expensive policies is NOT the government spending for health care

 

[Zander]

The Amish do not have to pay Social Security.
The Amish & Social Security


There is an entire county in Texas that opted out too....
GALVESTON COUNTY: A MODEL FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM

 

[NYcarbineer]

We already did in Iraq and Afghanistan....aren't you proud?

But if Americans want healthcare they are being.....LAZY

I remember a few years ago on a forum the conservatives started a good news from Iraq thread, to counter all the bad news that was coming out.

It wasn't uncommon to see reports of hospitals and schools built or restored. I guess the way to get conservatives to support spending on AMERICAN healthcare is let them bomb places into the stone age first.

Forcing us to buy more expensive policies is NOT the government spending for health care

I already have to buy healthcare. It comes with my job. I can't opt out. I can choose not to use it, but my employer doesn't give me the money instead.

I suspect most people are in a similar situation. So what's the big deal?

 

[Murf76]

Thanks....so i think I get it now

We elect people at the local, state and federal level to represent us. Those elected officials get to decide what is best for the society as a whole. If we are not happy with what they did, we get to elect someone else.

Is that what the Constitution is all about??

No. The people at the local, state, and federal levels who we elect to represent us, can't just do whatever the fuck they want. They must legislate from within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution, from within the parameters of their state constitution, and from within their local charters.

Social Security was ruled constitutional.

Yes it was.... by a Supreme Court that had been coerced by FDR on the threat of adding more justices until he got what he wanted.

 

[Murf76]

And what's worse, is that the provider need not negotiate with the paying customer for each transaction. They negotiate a contract price with the insurer, which is inflated because the provider already knows he has to offer a discount on the private insurer's contract and also cover his losses on the government's under-payments, and voila!... the cash-paying customer gets stuck with the inflated, pre-discount price.

I work for a privately owned physical therapy provider. When a customer comes in for cash-pay service, we give them a 40% discount on the service if they pay same-day. The patients do NOT get a 40% discount if they choose not pay same-day, and the reason for that is because if you see a patient and then send them a bill, most times, you never see that money. The 40% is an incentive to get paid.

Don't forget that medical offices also lose a lot of money. MANY patients do not pay their medical bills. This goes for those with or without insurance. Deductibles and co-insurances can be quite high, and the medical provider does not know, on the day of the patient visit, exactly how much the insurance company will put into the patient responsibility. So the patient comes in, gets his or her treatment, and the provider may never see them again. A bill is sent to the patient after payment is received from the insurance company. Some patients pay their bills. Many do not.

And THAT also contributes to the cost of medical care. Those of us who pay our bills have to help make up for all that is lost when others don't take responsibility for what they owe.

You're right. There are alot of providers that will cut a cash-paying customer a break. I worked for my internist for four years. Heck, he'd let uninsured folks go at the minimum office charge and then cut them 10% on top for same-day payment. They were getting out of there at about 35 dollars. INTERNAL MEDICINE... 35 dollars. By the same token, my nephew broke his arm a few years back and needed orthopedic surgery... and his parents were asked to pay the full price.

We've got an artificial inflation of price because of the heavy discounting that's done by both the government and by insurers, and as you pointed out, by people who refuse to pay at all. And while some providers will deal conscientiously with cash-paying customers, others will not.

 

[jeffrockit]

Sure we know what happened last week. We elected Representatives to develop a national healthcare plan. That is what they did.

If you don't like it, feel free to elect representatives who will repeal it.

That is the way a Republic works

well, it would seem that the assholes you elected had to pay each other to VOTE for the cluster fuck you call health care..

Unfortunately, that's the way government works. Lawmakers trade favors all the time to get their bills passed.

And the "CF" isn't for health care, it's for health insurance. If the insurance companies policed themselves a little better, there'd be no need for additional regulation.

If you want to talk about a REAL CF, let's talk the Iraq war. How much has that little gem cost us, in money and in lives?

If the govt had not had all the mandates on the ins co's, they might have been able to "police themselves". The insurance companies are not completely to blame, the high cost of hospital care, prescription meds, medical test and etc share a good bit of the blame. Unfortunately this horrible legislation that passed addresses none of these issues.

The fact is, this bill was never about bringing down HC costs it is about expanding the already bloated govt. Unfortunately, the negative results of this bill passing will not be seen for some years to come and by then will be too late to make it right. While I agree there are some good things in the bill, overwhelmingly it is bad legislation passed by bad politicians (are there any good ones?) through back room deals with big payoffs to their districts.

 

[xsited1]

Why can't we legislate an state level opt-out for S.S., medicade, and this healthcare program? People in states that do want these programs can elect to have them but people in states that don't want to participate in them can opt-out.

Don't be silly. The government has to FORCE everyone at gunpoint to pay for these programs. If you want liberty, don't live in the US.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I remember a few years ago on a forum the conservatives started a good news from Iraq thread, to counter all the bad news that was coming out.

It wasn't uncommon to see reports of hospitals and schools built or restored. I guess the way to get conservatives to support spending on AMERICAN healthcare is let them bomb places into the stone age first.

Forcing us to buy more expensive policies is NOT the government spending for health care

I already have to buy healthcare. It comes with my job. I can't opt out. I can choose not to use it, but my employer doesn't give me the money instead.

I suspect most people are in a similar situation. So what's the big deal?

You can absolutely not participate in a company health plan. Especially if you pay part of the premiums. It seems that your employer provides 100% coverage for all employees.

If the employer pays 100% why would you? We offer health insurance to all our employees some take it some don't.

And the obvious difference you are missing is that you are not being forced to buy it under penalty of taxes.

 

[rightwinger]

Why can't we legislate an state level opt-out for S.S., medicade, and this healthcare program? People in states that do want these programs can elect to have them but people in states that don't want to participate in them can opt-out.

Don't be silly. The government has to FORCE everyone at gunpoint to pay for these programs. If you want liberty, don't live in the US.

Which country do you suggest???


I'll wait for your answer