National Heathcare and Sovereign Immunity

[The2ndAmendment]

I am personally a supporter of a national healthcare model. In my opinion the health insurance should be a non-profit function of government that strives to reduce the costs of healthcare (for it's own sake) at the least expense to the health of its citizens.

That being said, there is a glaring hole in a national health care model, one so large, that is makes private health insurance monumentally superior to a government plan under current Law.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity prevents the government from being sued, unless the Government Consents to being sued.

As such, the Government will only sue when it believes it will win, and will only allow itself to be sued when it believes that you will lose.

So if we had National Health Care, and the Government decided to deny or disparage my right to health insurance, what recourse would I have since the government would not allow me to sue them?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

None.

And most folks will be glad to see sovereign immunity reduce medical costs.

These are the sorts of changes that can reduce malignant effects the fee taking classes have on the culture and the economy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

None.

And most folks will be glad to see sovereign immunity reduce medical costs.

These are the sorts of changes that can reduce malignant effects the fee taking classes have on the culture and the economy.

The funny thing is that neither Democrats nor Republicans mention this issue, Sovereign Immunity is the real Death Panel.

 

[rdean]

I am personally a supporter of a national healthcare model. In my opinion the health insurance should be a non-profit function of government that strives to reduce the costs of healthcare (for it's own sake) at the least expense to the health of its citizens.

That being said, there is a glaring hole in a national health care model, one so large, that is makes private health insurance monumentally superior to a government plan under current Law.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity prevents the government from being sued, unless the Government Consents to being sued.

As such, the Government will only sue when it believes it will win, and will only allow itself to be sued when it believes that you will lose.

So if we had National Health Care, and the Government decided to deny or disparage my right to health insurance, what recourse would I have since the government would not allow me to sue them?

Voting box

 

[healthmyths]

I am personally a supporter of a national healthcare model. In my opinion the health insurance should be a non-profit function of government that strives to reduce the costs of healthcare (for it's own sake) at the least expense to the health of its citizens.

That being said, there is a glaring hole in a national health care model, one so large, that is makes private health insurance monumentally superior to a government plan under current Law.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity prevents the government from being sued, unless the Government Consents to being sued.

As such, the Government will only sue when it believes it will win, and will only allow itself to be sued when it believes that you will lose.

So if we had National Health Care, and the Government decided to deny or disparage my right to health insurance, what recourse would I have since the government would not allow me to sue them?

WE HAVE 98.8 % of Americans THAT WANT insurance and HAVE insurance!
10 million supposedly uninsured are NOT CITIZENS!!! That leaves 36 million of the 46 million supposedly UNINSURED!
14 million are ELIGIBLE for MEDICAID and since 2007 10 million have enrolled in Medicaid so subtract 14 million from 36 million.. leaves 22 million!
NOW you want to force 18 million people to PAY MORE for health insurance even though they are under age 34, make over $50,000 and spend less then the cost of employer health insurance.
They probably have Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and flexible spending accounts (FSAs).
FSAs are mostly funded by workers through contributions taken out of their paychecks.
While 35 million workers use FSAs, millions more are offered them and could save tax with them.

AND when you subtract that 18 million from 22 million.. LEAVES 4 million that truly need health insurance!
4 million is 1.2% or that means 98.8% of Americans have their health expenses taken care of !

And to provide these 4 million you are all in favor of DESTROYING 98.8% of the rest of us our health services?

NOW if you want to solve the problem of these 4 million "uninsured"
TAX lawyers 10% like Obamacare did tanning salons!
After all the experts i.e. doctors all contend they spend 34% of the national $2.5 trillion in duplicate tests,specialists. ALL out of fear of lawsuits!
That's $850 billion!
Findings from this survey include the following:

• Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine in US at $650 to $850 billion per year. This is 26 to 34% of all US healthcare costs.
• Up to 92% of US physicians practice defensive medicine.
• 76% of physicians report that defensive medicine decreases patient access to healthcare.
• 53% of physicians report delaying new techniques, procedures, and treatments due to fear of lawsuits.
• Patients most affected by defensive medicine include those visiting emergency rooms and those requiring surgery.
• Women are most affected by defensive medicine.
• Emergency medicine, primary care, and OB/GYN physicians are most likely to practice defensive medicine.
• 79 to 83% of surgeons and OB/GYNs have been named in lawsuits.
• Physicians contracted by the federal government practice significantly less defensive medicine as they are protected against lawsuits by the Federal Tort Claims Act. Only 48% practice defensive medicine compared to 92% of non-government physicians.
• Physicians in New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Sweden (much lower risk of lawsuits) claim to order no tests, treatments, or consultations in an effort to prevent a lawsuit.
• 89% of physicians support a patient’s right to be compensated fairly for true negligence.

Source:Health News Observer ? Physicians Estimate The Cost Of Defensive Medicine In Us At 650 To 850 Bill Articles

Tax the lawyers and that $20 billion would be used to pay premiums for the 4 million that truly want and need health insurance!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Healthmyths, what did your response have to do with Sovereign Immunity?

For the record I am very well aware of your numbers and confirm them. I believe that a 100% transparent (and sue-able) national OPTION is the only way to go. Of course there really will be extremely cost prohibitive procedures that will be denied (millions of dollars to extend someone's life by 3 months), but the system must remain solvent for the benefit of everyone else.

Also, Private Health Insurance COULD NOT be outlawed. It would always have to exist as an alternative; however, they would have to be non-profit or minimal-profit organizations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am personally a supporter of a national healthcare model. In my opinion the health insurance should be a non-profit function of government that strives to reduce the costs of healthcare (for it's own sake) at the least expense to the health of its citizens.

That being said, there is a glaring hole in a national health care model, one so large, that is makes private health insurance monumentally superior to a government plan under current Law.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity prevents the government from being sued, unless the Government Consents to being sued.

As such, the Government will only sue when it believes it will win, and will only allow itself to be sued when it believes that you will lose.

So if we had National Health Care, and the Government decided to deny or disparage my right to health insurance, what recourse would I have since the government would not allow me to sue them?

your understanding of things is so pathetic, it is difficult to respond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

one question: has the government, any government: local, county, state, federal, ever lost a law suit?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

None.

And most folks will be glad to see sovereign immunity reduce medical costs.

These are the sorts of changes that can reduce malignant effects the fee taking classes have on the culture and the economy.

The funny thing is that neither Democrats nor Republicans mention this issue, Sovereign Immunity is the real Death Panel.

most people don't misinterpret things and go off on crazy tangents

and to think you posses firearms.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Dante, there are RARE exceptions (and they happen to make headlines) where the the outcome is not what the State expected, the majority of the times the State wins.

What you said is analogous to "It's ok to eat lead, because a few people ate it unharmed."

I don't get what you're complaining about. Sovereign Immunity is a sin.

Should there be a lighter form of Sovereign Immunity, in order to prevent countless Injunctions? Yes. But the State should be immune to injunctions while be sued, but not immune to being sued altogether; unless the judge decides to file an injunction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am personally a supporter of a national healthcare model. In my opinion the health insurance should be a non-profit function of government that strives to reduce the costs of healthcare (for it's own sake) at the least expense to the health of its citizens.

That being said, there is a glaring hole in a national health care model, one so large, that is makes private health insurance monumentally superior to a government plan under current Law.

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity prevents the government from being sued, unless the Government Consents to being sued.

As such, the Government will only sue when it believes it will win, and will only allow itself to be sued when it believes that you will lose.

So if we had National Health Care, and the Government decided to deny or disparage my right to health insurance, what recourse would I have since the government would not allow me to sue them?

This case is often referred to as the ‘Font of Federal Rights Enforcement’:

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.

Ex parte Young - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The attempt of a State officer to enforce an unconstitutional statute is a proceeding without authority of, and does not affect, the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity, and is an illegal act, and the officer is stripped of his official character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to its officer immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.

Ex Parte Young - 209 U.S. 123 (1908) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's actually a good read, thanks. However, would healthcare fall under this ruling? Healthcare is/would-be Law, not a recognized Constitutional right (although I believe its a positive right emanating from the Ninth Amendment [Life])..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's actually a good read, thanks. However, would healthcare fall under this ruling? Healthcare is/would-be Law, not a recognized Constitutional right (although I believe its a positive right emanating from the Ninth Amendment [Life])..

Yes, it would.

Although healthcare is not a right, due process and equal protection of the law are.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's actually a good read, thanks. However, would healthcare fall under this ruling? Healthcare is/would-be Law, not a recognized Constitutional right (although I believe its a positive right emanating from the Ninth Amendment [Life])..

Yes, it would.

Although healthcare is not a right, due process and equal protection of the law are.

The final question that remains, is one that I believe should benefit the State in certain circumstances.

Suppose that a citizens demands a multi-million dollar procedure that will only extend their life by a few months, is the State compelled to pay for this procedure? Should there be a limit per procedure (this is not the same as a lifetime limit) that decreases with the age of the citizen?

I know this is the "Death Panel" question, but anyone to not include this type of provision would quickly bankrupt the system for everyone else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's actually a good read, thanks. However, would healthcare fall under this ruling? Healthcare is/would-be Law, not a recognized Constitutional right (although I believe its a positive right emanating from the Ninth Amendment [Life])..

Yes, it would.

Although healthcare is not a right, due process and equal protection of the law are.

The final question that remains, is one that I believe should benefit the State in certain circumstances.

Suppose that a citizens demands a multi-million dollar procedure that will only extend their life by a few months, is the State compelled to pay for this procedure? Should there be a limit per procedure (this is not the same as a lifetime limit) that decreases with the age of the citizen?

I know this is the "Death Panel" question, but anyone to not include this type of provision would quickly bankrupt the system for everyone else.

There wouldn’t be an issue of ‘demand’ and ‘compel,’ that’s happening now with Medicare and Medicaid on the state level. One of the many advantages to a single payer system is that with everyone covered, everyone will also be contributing, including healthy young people who rarely, if ever, need expensive treatment.

But there might be an issue with regard to a certain type of treatment not allowed, where it’s not a matter of life or death, that the doctor believes is medically necessary. In such cases there’s a fair hearing/appeals process that could eventually go before an administrative law judge.

We see a similar process with regard to applications for Social Security disability benefits and Medicare, and disability applications for state Medicaid.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Same as now, I think, you sue the doctor or the hospital etc...

 

[francoHFW]

The death panel is actually your doctors, end of life counsellor and family, and only advisory. At some point it can get ridiculous. I trust any of the above more than the insurers/scammers we have now!

 

[francoHFW]

Young people have ACCIDENTS as well as medical problems, Bring on O-Care. Thank God, FINALLY!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"The USA is the only modern country in the world where full time workers live in poverty"

Are you sure about that?

 

[healthmyths]

Young people have ACCIDENTS as well as medical problems, Bring on O-Care. Thank God, FINALLY!

Define "young people"?
I imagine you mean under 34.
All Obamacare did was say they were "uninsured".
Obamacare didn't care.. they wanted a big number to prove national health care was needed.
MY biggest point is how can you possibly trust any entity that can't even do simply research like I've shared that
of the 46 million Obama says are uninsured..

10 million are NOT eligible as they are NOT citizens.

I mean also doesn't Obama know that 14 million are totally eligible for Medicaid which means all they need to do is enroll!
So subtract another 14 million!

So if the executive in charge i.e. Obama can't have at his fingertips as I've had the FACTS that
24 million of his 46 million are either NOT eligible or ARE already eligible... isn't that a clue that everything else is suspect?

Finally the 18 million under 34..
They make over $50,000 a year.
What do you know about them that I don't know but I'm assuming based on these facts:
They spend less then $1,000 a year on health care services.
If they had taken employers health program it would cost them more then what they are spending already!

So why did Obama NOT know this and use them as a bogus number which after subtracting now brings the
total of people that WANT and NEED insurance down to less then 5 million!

Now if Obamacare was so "smart" to tax tanning salons because of cancer, why not tax lawyers who according to the physicians cause $850 billion a year in duplicate tests, etc. all out of fear of lawsuits!
I mean are you really sure you want $850 billion spent unnecessarily?

But my major point is WHY if Obama is so smart can't he simply do the arithmetic..
THERE ARE NOT 46 million uninsured that want insurance!