The Fight Against the Health Care Takeover

[Quantum Windbag]

When you show up to a hospital that treats you for an emergency and you have no ability to pay - that can become my business because I might have to foot part of the ******* bill for it. That's how.

Fair enough. Then it sounds like we can agree that, unless I do that, how I pay for my health care isn't any of your business (or the government's), right?

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility.

How much money do you have to pay to cover the Amish, they never buy insurance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fair enough. Then it sounds like we can agree that, unless I do that, how I pay for my health care isn't any of your business (or the government's), right?

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility and in fact its pretty much certain that one day you will.

No. it's not actually. I make exactly no claim on any resources or services that might cost your stingy ass some money.

Tell me this much, if this whole idea of uncompensated care is really your biggest beef with health care - if the main goal for you is really to keep all us freeloaders from leaching off your wealth - then you'd probably be in favor of an opt-out, eh? How about we let people who don't want to give up their rights the option of giving up the supposed security of EMTALA as well. We can remain free to buy only the insurance we want - or even none at all - and the hospitals don't have to treat us if we can't pay.

I have brought that up more than once, and everyone keeps calling me names.

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility and in fact its pretty much certain that one day you will.

No. it's not actually. I make exactly no claim on any resources or services that might cost your stingy ass some money.

I'm not worried about any present claims, I'm worried about what claims you might make when you are bleeding to death. Somehow I doubt you're going to refuse treatment just to save me a buck.

Tell me this much, if this whole idea of uncompensated care is really your biggest beef with health care - if the main goal for you is really to keep all us freeloaders from leaching off your wealth - then you'd probably be in favor of an opt-out, eh? How about we let people who don't want to give up their rights the option of giving up the supposed security of EMTALA as well. We can remain free to buy only the insurance we want - or even none at all - and the hospitals don't have to treat us if we can't pay.

Awesome plan. And when someone shows up on an emergency room table dying and has no way to prove whether they are opt-in or opt-out - what then?

And parents - they can opt-out on behalf of their minor children in your brain dead plan, I take it?

Here's a clue - get off your lazy ass and buy health insurance.

See what I mean?

 

[dblack]

Here's a clue - get off your lazy ass and buy health insurance.

Here's another clue. Get off your fascist, high-horse and mind your own business.

 

[dblack]

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility and in fact its pretty much certain that one day you will.

No. it's not actually. I make exactly no claim on any resources or services that might cost your stingy ass some money.

Tell me this much, if this whole idea of uncompensated care is really your biggest beef with health care - if the main goal for you is really to keep all us freeloaders from leaching off your wealth - then you'd probably be in favor of an opt-out, eh? How about we let people who don't want to give up their rights the option of giving up the supposed security of EMTALA as well. We can remain free to buy only the insurance we want - or even none at all - and the hospitals don't have to treat us if we can't pay.

I have brought that up more than once, and everyone keeps calling me names.

I'm not worried about any present claims, I'm worried about what claims you might make when you are bleeding to death. Somehow I doubt you're going to refuse treatment just to save me a buck.

Tell me this much, if this whole idea of uncompensated care is really your biggest beef with health care - if the main goal for you is really to keep all us freeloaders from leaching off your wealth - then you'd probably be in favor of an opt-out, eh? How about we let people who don't want to give up their rights the option of giving up the supposed security of EMTALA as well. We can remain free to buy only the insurance we want - or even none at all - and the hospitals don't have to treat us if we can't pay.

Awesome plan. And when someone shows up on an emergency room table dying and has no way to prove whether they are opt-in or opt-out - what then?

And parents - they can opt-out on behalf of their minor children in your brain dead plan, I take it?

Here's a clue - get off your lazy ass and buy health insurance.

See what I mean?

Of course - because this isn't about protecting rights, it's about control. It's about corporatists wanting ever more power to tell us how to live, how to work, how to spend our money.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi OPPD Thanks again for replying. I can see some points you are going to help me with, so I hope on some points I can return the favor and help you equally. This is great, Thanks!

3.

It isn't. Buying insurance is not a tax. The Roberts opinion makes no such statement that buying insurance is a tax. If you are so interested in what the opinion states have you ever thought of, I dunno, maybe, reading it?

3. I thought the whole issue brought to the Supreme Court challenging the bill, was that "making citizens buy insurance" was not within Constitutional federal authority:
(a) because, as you just confirmed, it was not a tax which would have been within govt roles
(b) and/or the idea of regulating commerce did not apply to compelling citizens to participate
So for Justice Roberts to let the bill pass "because it essentially works as a tax" HAD to apply to BOTH the insurance mandate AND the fine/penality if this is not paid. Or did the first part (the insurance mandate) pass because it counted as "regulating commerce"? Or did they judge the whole bill together and interpret "the whole system" as a tax instead of addressing each part (the mandate separately from the fine/penalties if this isn't met)
(c) as for reading the judgment directly, I am first trying to get an overview of where different people are coming from first. My own interpretation of it will only apply to me, and I treat your interpretation as the right one for you. So if I am talking with you, I am more concerned with understanding YOUR interpretation of it. I trust you to tell me that yourself. I can't get that from anyone else.

Could you please be a bit more vague?

RE: Religious Exemption, cited in a previous msg to you.
"According to the Culpepper, VA Star-Exponent:
in the midst of this sweeping new legislation is the “Religious Exemption,” Section 1501(b), which states: “The term ‘applicable individual’ … shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.”

The bill then defines a “health care sharing ministry” to be any 501(c)(3) organization that has existed since at least 1999 whose members “share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs.”

Things that live in water and do not breathe air do not have any Constitutional protections. To suggest that a fetus is a higher citizen than the woman it lives in is the height of stupidity.

No, I'm not saying that.
I'm talking about the equal Constitutional protections for the CITIZENS who have these differing views. The content of their views is not so much the issue, as long as they take responsibility for their own views and do not impose these on other people religiously.
This way, they don't have to compete to dominate, and don't have to criticize each other.

I am saying that the CITIZENS who are prochoice and the CITIZENS who are prolife BOTH have EQUAL rights to defend their "respective views" from infringement by govt policies, biased for or against either one. I am not going to go in there and necessarily pick apart whatever beliefs each person has; the point is NOT to impose them on people of dissenting beliefs equally protected by law. And for each person to take responsibility for his or her OWN beliefs, not worry about changing other people's.

So indirectly, if a CITIZEN has this prolife belief that prochoice puts unequal focus on the woman instead of the man or the child, that person has the right to defend that view. And if another CITIZEN has the belief that the women are being unfairly targeted and penalized then that person has the right to defend that view from imposition or oppression. This way, all CITIZEN'S VIEWS can either be defended EQUALLY, and/or they can exercise equal freedom to fund and support their own respective policies and not impose on each other.

In truth, I believe people have every right to believe and defend both the woman and the unborn child as EQUAL SOULS with the capacity to feel fear, pain and suffering as love and peace. Clearly that is on a spiritual level, so it cannot be legislated by govt. If we quit fighting over laws that put any person above any other, and focus on what will prevent rape, relationship abuse, sexual abuse, unwanted pregnancy/sex/abortion, etc. then we can better protect both the interests of women, men and children equally.

We just can't make laws that impose a bias excluding one view or another and expect people to agree that is constitutional. Each side will scream out their religious freedom is being abridged. Laws would have to be written to protect and respect all views inclusively. So most of the work would have to be done outside of govt to resolve religious conflicts first.