[HaremShaih]

Which is why I favor doing away with that law that states emergency rooms are required to treat u even when you can't pay. To me health care is not a right that everyone should have.

Clearly, you've never been in a position of needing emergency care and it being refused because your wallet wasn't full of dollars. For those of us in health care, in the military and civilian arenas, there is absolutely no way we can turn our backs on those who need treatment. Before the law went into effect, it wasn't unusual to hear a vehicle screech to a halt outside the ER doors, a thump of something hitting the ground, then tires screeching away......the informal "delivery system," often for gunshot or assault victims, by friends of the victim who knew that by leaving the poor soul in a pile at the back door, there was no way we could get out of taking care of the patient. It's absolutely abominable to think that some think it's ok to deny care to women, children, everyone who come to the ER and need help. Having worked many times in military ER's, there was just as much, if not MORE abuse of the ER by those who arrived to have the most minor problems taken care of, demanding care and right now, sometimes based on rank, and not utilizing the appointment system. In civilian ER's, it's very common to have low income patients come in, literally on death's door, due to not having the money to try to get the problem fixed early on. When are we going to stop turning our national back on the poor who need health care? When are we as a nation going to join the rest of the industrialized nations of the world that have health care for all citizens? When are we going to save BUCKETS of money on providing health care for all with emphasis on prevention, instead of the piece meal mess we have now?

[Dkavtbek]

Which is why I favor doing away with that law that states emergency rooms are required to treat u even when you can't pay. To me health care is not a right that everyone should have.

Clearly, you've never been in a position of needing emergency care and it being refused because your wallet wasn't full of dollars. For those of us in health care, in the military and civilian arenas, there is absolutely no way we can turn our backs on those who need treatment. Before the law went into effect, it wasn't unusual to hear a vehicle screech to a halt outside the ER doors, a thump of something hitting the ground, then tires screeching away......the informal "delivery system," often for gunshot or assault victims, by friends of the victim who knew that by leaving the poor soul in a pile at the back door, there was no way we could get out of taking care of the patient. It's absolutely abominable to think that some think it's ok to deny care to women, children, everyone who come to the ER and need help. Having worked many times in military ER's, there was just as much, if not MORE abuse of the ER by those who arrived to have the most minor problems taken care of, demanding care and right now, sometimes based on rank, and not utilizing the appointment system. In civilian ER's, it's very common to have low income patients come in, literally on death's door, due to not having the money to try to get the problem fixed early on. When are we going to stop turning our national back on the poor who need health care? When are we as a nation going to join the rest of the industrialized nations of the world that have health care for all citizens? When are we going to save BUCKETS of money on providing health care for all with emphasis on prevention, instead of the piece meal mess we have now?

[ftpsoft]

Clearly, you've never been in a position of needing emergency care and it being refused because your wallet wasn't full of dollars. For those of us in health care, in the military and civilian arenas, there is absolutely no way we can turn our backs on those who need treatment. Before the law went into effect, it wasn't unusual to hear a vehicle screech to a halt outside the ER doors, a thump of something hitting the ground, then tires screeching away......the informal "delivery system," often for gunshot or assault victims, by friends of the victim who knew that by leaving the poor soul in a pile at the back door, there was no way we could get out of taking care of the patient. It's absolutely abominable to think that some think it's ok to deny care to women, children, everyone who come to the ER and need help. Having worked many times in military ER's, there was just as much, if not MORE abuse of the ER by those who arrived to have the most minor problems taken care of, demanding care and right now, sometimes based on rank, and not utilizing the appointment system. In civilian ER's, it's very common to have low income patients come in, literally on death's door, due to not having the money to try to get the problem fixed early on. When are we going to stop turning our national back on the poor who need health care? When are we as a nation going to join the rest of the industrialized nations of the world that have health care for all citizens? When are we going to save BUCKETS of money on providing health care for all with emphasis on prevention, instead of the piece meal mess we have now?

When the lazy apathetic a-holes get hit enough times in the wallet!

[Vomekayafboke]

When are we as a nation going to join the rest of the industrialized nations of the world that have health care for all citizens? When are we going to save BUCKETS of money on providing health care for all with emphasis on prevention, instead of the piece meal mess we have now?

As someone who grew up in England where it is health care for all, i saw way too much abuse of it by those who IMO should not have been entitled to it (illegals, asylum seakers etc) and long waits to say it is something we should aspire to..

[pouslytut]

As someone who grew up in England where it is health care for all, i saw way too much abuse of it by those who IMO should not have been entitled to it (illegals, asylum seakers etc) and long waits to say it is something we should aspire to..

My understanding is that the UK is seeking to roll back on the nanny state because they are going bankrupt too.

Here's an idea.

In the spirit of the 10th Amendment, if Obamacare is overturned it would be interesting to see the effect of a few states tackling the rise in healthcare rates by setting up a special 1% sales tax dedicated to encouraging health saving accounts and reimbursing uninsured emergency room visits to hospitals. Given that hospitals are required by law to treat everyone, a little help in covering such mandated expenses might be in order, especially in light of the fact that the insured ultimately pay these expenses through increased rates. Instead of spreading the wealth, let’s spread the responsibility. I don’t like the idea of raising taxes, but at least the taxpayers might get something out of it and it is appropriate for states to do the taxing.

At the end of each tax-year, the sales tax paid could be recovered (or some percentage thereof, say 90%) by payer from the state, if bank documentation indicates sufficient deposits during the same tax-year in the special healthcare bank account. Given the state of technology, maybe each bank would/could provide some sort of card that would be swiped at a point of purchase that would register the amount of health sales tax paid in each tax year, eliminating the need to keep all the receipts. I’m sure details for ease of use could be worked out between bank and end providers of healthcare services.

The Account could be used only for medical or dental purposes for the family; it would pass at death to designated beneficiaries tax free if received into the same type of healthcare account. The remaining 10% (if 90% is refundable to tax payer), plus those taxes which were not timely claimed by persons paying the sales tax, could be used by the state to reimburse emergency rooms that have been documented to be unsuccessful in being paid by their uninsured sick and injured (with jail time penalties for abuse of the system by providers). Hospitals would sign over delinquent claims that are paid by the state for collection, confiscating regular tax refunds, lotto winnings, etc. If hospital claims exceed the amount in the general health tax fund, hospitals would receive a pro-rata share.

It might create a certain stigma for being a freeloader if one does not pay emergency room bills - given that everyone would know that they are paying part of the delinquent bill (even the uninsured and tourists are paying). At least, everyone would be paying something and health insurance costs could come down in these states since hospitals would not have to charge insurance companies so much to cover the uninsured in the ER.

However, everyone would still receive access to health care like they do now, but hospitals would need to collect sufficient information for collection efforts by the hospital and ultimately the state.

Those with health care accounts would be aided in negotiating with the doctor for services and they might not go to the doctor for every little thing.

Such a program would raise a lot of money for emergency room reimbursement and would thus put downward pressure on health care cost. Many people, I suspect, would not make claims for return of small amounts of sale taxes paid in. The claims of many would go in the ‘oh well’ drawer.

This kind of program would not encourage the federal government to grow bigger vis-à-vis their health care excuse. If a state felt inclined to increase the amount of this tax, people would still be able to vote with their feet and flee such states. There could be fifty little lab experiments for fiscal responsibility for healthcare.

These programs could be paired with specific lotto games (state or national). One which might be used for paying hospitals uninsured claims/expenses, one for Veterans healthcare, one for science/math/engineering student/medical loan forgiveness.

Other ideas/possibilities –

• A low cost standardized $1,000 - 5,000 deductible, catastrophic coverage should be made available. (Agreed to by major Insurance Companies, given they were almost put out of business they might be eager to cooperate.) Negotiating for services by insured would help put downward pressure on fees for office visits.
• Standardized insurance forms (companies should help given they were almost made extinct) to lower medical office costs.
• Barter for medical services should not be a taxable event. It would encourage providers to accept services for Doctor’s fees. House cleaning, lawn mowing, car washing, baby-sitting, etc. One needs to worry about appearance of indentured servants. This was common when I was a kid.
• Tort reform is a must.
• Allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.
• Put in place protections to help doctors resist practicing defensive medicine (against tort claims).
• Have a high deductible, nationwide medical malpractice insurance plan for doctors, etc (agreed to by major providers).
• Focus on allowing capable family members to do tasks (waiver form necessary) that a nurse would normally do (changing bandages, sending digital photos of condition to doctor/nurse from home, etc.).
• Have a .gov Internet site that provides medical information, how to guide for people that might minimize trips to emergency room. Similar to book “Where There’s No Doctor”
• If the government could be trusted, there could be a check box on tax form to allow taxpayers to add amounts to go towards healthcare.
• Urge all insurance providers to set up a standardized nationwide high-risk pool. Maybe national lottery idea or check box on tax forms could be used to get premiums down to normal risk rates. Voluntary encouragement for Americans to aid down on luck Americans.
• Allow doctors, dentists, hospitals, providers, insurance companies, etc. to deduct from taxes the fair value of services provided to low-income clients.
• Have a lower tax bracket for insurance companies and providers who give a certain percentage of care to low-income folks.
• Have more health screenings at schools for students and families. Give providers incentives as stated above.
• Secure the border.

[adactthrd]

What bad decisions?

Not buying health insurance, bad financial decisions, etc?

[DINAKuncher]

My understanding is that the UK is seeking to roll back on the nanny state because they are going bankrupt too.

Here's an idea.

In the spirit of the 10th Amendment, if Obamacare is overturned it would be interesting to see the effect of a few states tackling the rise in healthcare rates by setting up a special 1% sales tax dedicated to encouraging health saving accounts and reimbursing uninsured emergency room visits to hospitals. Given that hospitals are required by law to treat everyone, a little help in covering such mandated expenses might be in order, especially in light of the fact that the insured ultimately pay these expenses through increased rates. Instead of spreading the wealth, let’s spread the responsibility. I don’t like the idea of raising taxes, but at least the taxpayers might get something out of it and it is appropriate for states to do the taxing.

I'd be for that... but i also feel that since a good chunk of the monies used in those emergency room visits are from illegals, we should reduce any payments we have going to the countries where said illegals are from to make up the difference as well. (cough mexico cough)

At the end of each tax-year, the sales tax paid could be recovered (or some percentage thereof, say 90%) by payer from the state, if bank documentation indicates sufficient deposits during the same tax-year in the special healthcare bank account. Given the state of technology, maybe each bank would/could provide some sort of card that would be swiped at a point of purchase that would register the amount of health sales tax paid in each tax year, eliminating the need to keep all the receipts. I’m sure details for ease of use could be worked out between bank and end providers of healthcare services.

The Account could be used only for medical or dental purposes for the family; it would pass at death to designated beneficiaries tax free if received into the same type of healthcare account. The remaining 10% (if 90% is refundable to tax payer), plus those taxes which were not timely claimed by persons paying the sales tax, could be used by the state to reimburse emergency rooms that have been documented to be unsuccessful in being paid by their uninsured sick and injured (with jail time penalties for abuse of the system by providers). Hospitals would sign over delinquent claims that are paid by the state for collection, confiscating regular tax refunds, lotto winnings, etc. If hospital claims exceed the amount in the general health tax fund, hospitals would receive a pro-rata share.

This is an interesting idea, but are we not bloated enough with oversite issues?? Plus with the gamut of break in and thefts of personal data these days, is this not inviting more issues?

It might create a certain stigma for being a freeloader if one does not pay emergency room bills - given that everyone would know that they are paying part of the delinquent bill (even the uninsured and tourists are paying).

Personally i feel there is NOT enough stigma or public humiliation of those freeloaders as is...
I know some stores/bars i have been in they have pictures by the door of thieves or those who have 'welched' on a bar tab. So if its good for those places, why not hospitals..

Now onto your list...

A low cost standardized $1,000 - 5,000 deductible, catastrophic coverage should be made available. (Agreed to by major Insurance Companies, given they were almost put out of business they might be eager to cooperate.) Negotiating for services by insured would help put downward pressure on fees for office visits.

Maybe i am not up on my insurance practices etc, but what would this accomplish?

Standardized insurance forms (companies should help given they were almost made extinct) to lower medical office costs.

Agreed. Heck imo the forms should be standardized across the country.

Barter for medical services should not be a taxable event. It would encourage providers to accept services for Doctor’s fees. House cleaning, lawn mowing, car washing, baby-sitting, etc. One needs to worry about appearance of indentured servants. This was common when I was a kid.

Hmm.. has merit.. "Yes doc i can't pay up right now, but i do work for a carpentry company, and i note from the papers on your desk you are looking to put up a new gazebo... perhaps we can negotiate something"...

Tort reform is a must.

Helllz yes...

Allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.

Most definitely.

Put in place protections to help doctors resist practicing defensive medicine (against tort claims).

Defensive medicine??

Have a high deductible, nationwide medical malpractice insurance plan for doctors, etc (agreed to by major providers).

I could see this... but i also favor lowering what counts for malpractice...

Focus on allowing capable family members to do tasks (waiver form necessary) that a nurse would normally do (changing bandages, sending digital photos of condition to doctor/nurse from home, etc.).

Agreed... heck i could see even giving some limited training to family members (changing out iv drip, taking blood pressure/temp/pulse data) to help save time/nurse hours..

Have a .gov Internet site that provides medical information, how to guide for people that might minimize trips to emergency room. Similar to book “Where There’s No Doctor”

I know some states already have something like this.. but the 2 sites i do remember hearing about were more like some lawyer based sites, where you paid to get answers to questions...

If the government could be trusted, there could be a check box on tax form to allow taxpayers to add amounts to go towards healthcare.

Big IF there..

Urge all insurance providers to set up a standardized nationwide high-risk pool. Maybe national lottery idea or check box on tax forms could be used to get premiums down to normal risk rates. Voluntary encouragement for Americans to aid down on luck Americans.

Sort of like how charity gifts are usable to reduce your tax rate as is? Interesting idea.

Allow doctors, dentists, hospitals, providers, insurance companies, etc. to deduct from taxes the fair value of services provided to low-income clients.

Whom would come up with the list of fair price/value for services? Would it be national figures, regional, state?

Have a lower tax bracket for insurance companies and providers who give a certain percentage of care to low-income folks.

What determins the percentage they must give?

Have more health screenings at schools for students and families. Give providers incentives as stated above.

Would these be voluntary? Or like some firms seem to be going, mandatory (under the guise of being voluntary, but the firm fines you if you don't go)...???... (PS give me time and i hope to get links to what i was saying above)..

Secure the border.

A definite must!

[TeemFilla]

When the lazy apathetic a-holes get hit enough times in the wallet!

They're not lazy apathetic a-holes, they're usually hard working, maybe more than 2 jobs a-holes who get minimum wage and can't afford $1K/month insurance! What about all the people who are out of work right now, the ones who've worked for years, and have been trying to get a job? A lot of those people are in their 50's and having a hell of a time getting a job; younger is cheaper to hire! Are we supposed to turn our backs on everyone that is unemployed....millions who've worked for decades?
NO, and if you don't get that, go out into the civilian world and deal with the costs of health insurance...then get a heart.

[remstaling]

They're not lazy apathetic a-holes, they're usually hard working, maybe more than 2 jobs a-holes who get minimum wage and can't afford $1K/month insurance! What about all the people who are out of work right now, the ones who've worked for years, and have been trying to get a job? A lot of those people are in their 50's and having a hell of a time getting a job; younger is cheaper to hire! Are we supposed to turn our backs on everyone that is unemployed....millions who've worked for decades?
NO, and if you don't get that, go out into the civilian world and deal with the costs of health insurance...then get a heart.

Poor posting on my part.

The lazy apathetic ENABLERS of those that make poor health related choices.
The one's who have "theirs" and couldn't care less about the general welfare of others.

The rising costs of healthcare really do effect all.

The customer who turns a blind-eye concerning the shoplifter not realizing that loss prevention affects the price of goods.

[Keyclenef]

Poor posting on my part.

The lazy apathetic ENABLERS of those that make poor health related choices.
The one's who have "theirs" and couldn't care less about the general welfare of others.

The rising costs of healthcare really do effect all.

The customer who turns a blind-eye concerning the shoplifter not realizing that loss prevention affects the price of goods.

You "poor posting".....me, exhausted from leaping to conclusions and down your throat. Mea Culpa.

[zoneouddy]

Nope, not at all. I've been known to be some what "curt" at times.

[ElenaEvgeevna]

Clearly, you've never been in a position of needing emergency care and it being refused because your wallet wasn't full of dollars. For those of us in health care, in the military and civilian arenas, there is absolutely no way we can turn our backs on those who need treatment. Before the law went into effect, it wasn't unusual to hear a vehicle screech to a halt outside the ER doors, a thump of something hitting the ground, then tires screeching away......the informal "delivery system," often for gunshot or assault victims, by friends of the victim who knew that by leaving the poor soul in a pile at the back door, there was no way we could get out of taking care of the patient. It's absolutely abominable to think that some think it's ok to deny care to women, children, everyone who come to the ER and need help. Having worked many times in military ER's, there was just as much, if not MORE abuse of the ER by those who arrived to have the most minor problems taken care of, demanding care and right now, sometimes based on rank, and not utilizing the appointment system. In civilian ER's, it's very common to have low income patients come in, literally on death's door, due to not having the money to try to get the problem fixed early on. When are we going to stop turning our national back on the poor who need health care? When are we as a nation going to join the rest of the industrialized nations of the world that have health care for all citizens? When are we going to save BUCKETS of money on providing health care for all with emphasis on prevention, instead of the piece meal mess we have now?

And neither have you or anyone else in the US. Hospitals are required by law to provide emergency care...no one is turned away. Nice try.

[avaincmolla]

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

In a highly combative salvo, Obama also staunchly defended the anchor of the law -- a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- as key to giving millions of people access to treatment for the first time.

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

Pointed comments from Supreme Court justices last week during three days of compelling hearings have convinced many commentators that the court, expected to rule in June, will declare the law, dubbed ObamaCare, unconstitutional.

Read more:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-o...v1Exy-Pzsy#_=_


Thoughts?

Before making any more comments, why not read the actual act?

You can find it here: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

[primaveraloler]

Obama is outta line on this one. This is what the Supreme Court does...they are unelected positions by design.

Usually, it is conservatives crying about "activist judges"..which roughly translates to "I don't like that ruling"

Yeah, there is a smell of Karma these days.

[wpFWNoIt]

Unless you live in cities like San Francisco or New York, where public transportation is robust, you must drive a vehicle, ride a bike, roller skate, etc. So, the vast majority of the population in this country have no choice but to CHOOSE to drive a car, and they MUST have insurance. The reason many of us pay exorbitant car insurance rates is because some do CHOOSE to not buy car insurance, so when they get in accidents or cause damage or both, we all pay for them. It's the same principle.

The analogy isn't quite apples to apples. The mandatory insurance for vehicles is to pay for damages suffered by OTHERS in accidents we are found at fault in not for damages to our property.

[bestgenpower]

QUESTION:

So, obviously all the Republican candidates are running on the promise that they will overturn Obamacare on Day 1 of their Presidency. This is one of their main themes. So, if the SCOTUS throws it out, they no longer have that promise to run on. Will the SCOTUS overturning Obama's central legislation actually help him win reelection?

They will still have the remainder of the bill (which would be greatly weakened by the potential SCOTUS ruling) so I think it is a good thing for the Republicans. This doesn't necessarily mean its a good thing period. It would be a very good thing to have universal health care in the US. My main concern with the bill has always been that we just can't afford it. You can make the bills for it come due 12 years from now but it still remains true that we just can't afford it.

[tipokot]

Clearly, you've never been in a position of needing emergency care and it being refused because your wallet wasn't full of dollars. For those of us in health care, in the military and civilian arenas, there is absolutely no way we can turn our backs on those who need treatment. Before the law went into effect, it wasn't unusual to hear a vehicle screech to a halt outside the ER doors, a thump of something hitting the ground, then tires screeching away......the informal "delivery system," often for gunshot or assault victims, by friends of the victim who knew that by leaving the poor soul in a pile at the back door, there was no way we could get out of taking care of the patient. It's absolutely abominable to think that some think it's ok to deny care to women, children, everyone who come to the ER and need help. Having worked many times in military ER's, there was just as much, if not MORE abuse of the ER by those who arrived to have the most minor problems taken care of, demanding care and right now, sometimes based on rank, and not utilizing the appointment system. In civilian ER's, it's very common to have low income patients come in, literally on death's door, due to not having the money to try to get the problem fixed early on. When are we going to stop turning our national back on the poor who need health care? When are we as a nation going to join the rest of the industrialized nations of the world that have health care for all citizens? When are we going to save BUCKETS of money on providing health care for all with emphasis on prevention, instead of the piece meal mess we have now?

Isn't it just as likely to see the poor and uninsured in the ER getting seen for minor things as well?

[Aswdwdfg]

Before making any more comments, why not read the actual act?

You can find it here: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

Were any of his comments in disagreement with the actual law? If so, please point them out.

I am a bit puzzled by your post because his post really had nothing to do with the text of the law but rather the President's comments and reactions to the possibility of a negative SCOTUS ruling.

[Gozmand]

Were any of his comments in disagreement with the actual law? If so, please point them out.

I am a bit puzzled by your post because his post really had nothing to do with the text of the law but rather the President's comments and reactions to the possibility of a negative SCOTUS ruling.

Confused me even moreso, I direct quoted an article for most of this (I can claim the title and "thoughts?") just to let people weigh in on exactly what you described.

On another note, it appears the link to the article is now broken, my apologies for that!

[suingincentix]

Confused me even moreso, I direct quoted an article for most of this (I can claim the title and "thoughts?") just to let people weigh in on exactly what you described.

On another note, it appears the link to the article is now broken, my apologies for that!

Well, it was a bit of a rhetorical question as I don't expect an on-topic answer.