Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[Steved1998]

Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen

Chief Justice John Roberts Must Have Had an Epileptic Episode, Reason Increasingly Deluded Conservatives

The "epilepsy did it" theory is brought to you by conservative radio host Michael Savage, who implied on his radio show that Roberts' epilepsy-addled brain was ill-equipped to rule on the Affordable Care Act, because seizures make people change their political ideologies. The full quote, per Think Progress

" Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying."

I don't blame epilepsy. There is more sinister force at work: Barack Obama. Obama obviously had men loyal to him threaten Chief Justice Roberts' family. What man would risk the safety of his family? Not I! That's the only explanation for his piss poor attempt to move the court to the center and support this socialist handout.

[martha]

It must've been the Kenyan Mafia.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

mandating free health care at emergency rooms

This is bad...why?

[Steved1998]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

This is bad...why?

If you can't afford the doctor, than you're not entitled to the treatment. Don't get sick if you can't pay for it.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

This is bad...why?

i would think the more pressing issue would be to mandate the charges emergency rooms, err, charge. it shouldn't cost several thousands of dollars for an overnight stay in an er, especially if there's no surgery involved or anything. not to mention how ridiculously inaccurate the billing process can be.

perhaps if we reigned in those charges it wouldn't be so ridiculous that just a fraction of people can't afford to pay their hospital bills, and perhaps too if people didn't get $20k bills there'd also be less people declaring bankruptcy because they had a heart attack.

but that's just me.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

i would think the more pressing issue would be to mandate the charges emergency rooms, err, charge. it shouldn't cost several thousands of dollars for an overnight stay in an er, especially if there's no surgery involved or anything. not to mention how ridiculously inaccurate the billing process can be.

perhaps if we reigned in those charges it wouldn't be so ridiculous that just a fraction of people can't afford to pay their hospital bills, and perhaps too if people didn't get $20k bills there'd also be less people declaring bankruptcy because they had a heart attack.

but that's just me.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Just...the idea of turning people away who are sick because they don't have the money seems so cold-hearted to me. Doctors are there to help you get better, not get rich off your illness.

Steved, if you're serious, that just flat out makes no sense and isn't at all realistic. If you're not, is there a particular reason for the trolling, or...?

I'm dead serious, some of the comments on this part of the boards of late are really bugging the crap out of me.

[HBK-79]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Wholeheartedly agreed. Just...the idea of turning people away who are sick because they don't have the money seems so cold-hearted to me. Doctors are there to help you get better, not get rich off your illness.

Steved, if you're serious, that just flat out makes no sense and isn't at all realistic. If you're not, is there a particular reason for the trolling, or...?

I'm dead serious, some of the comments on this part of the boards of late are really bugging the crap out of me.

I agree with you, Angela. People can't help it if they get sick. Or get into an accident. Or get physically or sexually assaulted.

People can't help it if they are just unfortunate. Trust me. I used to work in an ER/trauma center.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by martha

You really know how to extrapolate. You must be very proud.

Originally Posted by martha
And didn't elected legislators pass this law?

I'll further extrapolate out and predict that you won't make this argument when overturning statutes, ballot referendums and state constitutions concerning same-sex marriage is on the Supreme Court's docket.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

This is bad...why?

If, as the argument goes, this new mandate, err, tax is only going to affect the 1% to 2% of "freeloaders" who can afford insurance but refuse to pay then why not, just like any other business, allow hospitals to collect on unpaid bills rather than cost-shifting that loss to those that do pay?

Why can the government collect a tax on these people but hospitals can't sue them for unpaid bills? Why not just cut out the middleman, government?

Oh wait, getting government MORE involved, not less, is the raison d'être of Obamacare.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

If, as the argument goes, this new mandate, err, tax is only going to affect the 1% to 2% of "freeloaders" who can afford insurance but refuse to pay then why not, just like any other business, allow hospitals to collect on unpaid bills rather than cost-shifting that loss to those that do pay?

Sorry, strawman argument. There are plenty of employed young people who choose not to buy health insurance because they are "healthy," but they can't afford to pay their medical bills if they have a catastrophic injury or illness like cancer.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I'll further extrapolate out and predict that you won't make this argument when overturning statutes, ballot referendums and state constitutions concerning same-sex marriage is on the Supreme Court's docket.

Because minority rights and health care are the same thing? Because the people of California voted to take away the health insurance of red heads?

Oh, wait, this is all just point scoring and my side vs. your side for the right. Feel free to continue to feel under siege.

You know, Israelis have universal health care.

[financeguy]

TBH, free entry to A&E, whatever about what happens later after a condition is diagnosed, just seems like a basic hallmark of a decent and civilised society. To call it socialism is just absurd. Charging for A&E is something only the privateer brigade, the "privatise everything" wingnuts, would think is a good idea. Didn't work in the 80s, doesn't make sense now either. Even Thatcher didn't go near the NHS.

As for Steve1998, he is obviously trolling or being ironic.

[martha]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I'll further extrapolate out and predict that you won't make this argument when overturning statutes, ballot referendums and state constitutions concerning same-sex marriage is on the Supreme Court's docket.

Dude, fucking chill.

purpleoscar seemed to be complaining that the Supreme Court (I refuse to use that hideous acronym) was legislating. I was pointing out that the law that was upheld had been legislated. That's all.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Danny Boy

Sorry, strawman argument. There are plenty of employed young people who choose not to buy health insurance because they are "healthy," but they can't afford to pay their medical bills if they have a catastrophic injury or illness like cancer.

1) The employed, "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.

2) This law now forces the employed, "young and healthy" to buy comprehensive insurance (which actuarially and in reality most won't need) or pay the tax. Obamacare enforces community rating on the "young and healthy" which means their premium is the same as a 55 yo with diabetes, hypertension and a history of heart attacks. In the name of fairness of course.
I wonder at what point the "young and healthy" will realize they are the revenue patsies in this scheme?

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

1) The employed "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.

So you're arguing that these people should be denied care then. Because that's the only way the housing/saving for retirement analogy works. They should have not been so short sighted as not to purchase catastrophic care so they should be turned away at the ER door no?

Originally Posted by INDY500

2) This law now forces them to buy comprehensive insurance or pay the tax. I wonder at what point the "young and healthy" will realize they are the revenue patsies in this scheme?

Prior to this law the tax came in the form of higher healthcare costs to cover the costs of those who show up in the emergency room and can't pay. I suppose I understand, given your distaste for the government, why you would prefer to keep those costs being passed on in the private sector rather than via a government tax, but lets not pretend that we haven't been paying for the uninsured all along.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

1) The employed "young and healthy" need the option of catastrophic, high deductible insurance. If they don't buy that then they are gambling in a manner no different than not buying insurance on their house or saving for retirement. If one chooses to act irresponsibly with their money I lose a certain deal of economic compassion for them.

2) This law now forces the employed "young and healty" to buy comprehensive insurance (which actuarially and in reality most won't need) or pay the tax. I wonder at what point the "young and healthy" will realize they are the revenue patsies in this scheme?

Of course they are the revenue source. No health insurance plan works if only old sick people are paying premiums. And someday, those young healthy people will be old and sick.

I suppose you would like to get rid of social security as well.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

So you're arguing that these people should be denied care then. Because that's the only way the housing/saving for retirement analogy works. They should have not been so short sighted as not to purchase catastrophic care so they should be turned away at the ER door no?

I didn't say denied care or asked to pay up front. I said not resolved of responsibility in the same way someone leaving a restaurant or gas station without paying isn't granted immunity because "they don't want to pay."
And I'm talking about bills that, in most cases, that total less then 6 months income. The same way someone failing to pay their income tax isn't forgiven.

By the way, the individual mandate at one time pushed by some Republicans as a response to Hillarycare, it was a mandate to buy high deductible insurance or post a bond that health care providers could use for reimbursement. An altogether different animal than the Obamacare mandate.

Prior to this law the tax came in the form of higher healthcare costs to cover the costs of those who show up in the emergency room and can't pay. I suppose I understand, given your distaste for the government, why you would prefer to keep those costs being passed on in the private sector rather than via a government tax, but lets not pretend that we haven't been paying for the uninsured all along.

I haven't been, it's called cost-shifting. Another form of cost-shifting is when Medicare or Medicaid cuts back on reimbursement rates and that loss of revenue is then passed on to private payers. Expect more of that one in the future.

[Danny Boy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I didn't say denied care or asked to pay up front. I said not resolved of responsibility in the same way someone leaving a restaurant or gas station without paying isn't granted immunity because "they don't want to pay."
And I'm talking about bills that, in most cases, that total less then 6 months income. The same way someone failing to pay their income tax isn't forgiven.

They do get billed, and their accounts even get handed over to collection agencies, but a lot of it never gets paid and the cost gets passed on to the insured. Unreimbursed care has only been going up and up since the economy has been in the shitter.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

I didn't say denied care or asked to pay up front. I said not resolved of responsibility in the same way someone leaving a restaurant or gas station without paying isn't granted immunity because "they don't want to pay."
And I'm talking about bills that, in most cases, that total less then 6 months income. The same way someone failing to pay their income tax isn't forgiven.

The situations you are describing are again, not analogous. When you go to a restaurant or a gas station is not even potentially a life-threatening situation. If you can't afford to go out to eat, eat at home. As for gas, if you're driving off without paying that is intentional theft in a way that going to the ER with chest pains is not. Likewise with tax evasion.

As for less than six months income, for some of us a hospital bill totaling one months income would be a serious problem. Now when you start talking about bills less than a hundred bucks, well, yeah most people who "can't afford it" aren't really trying. But we both know even routine health cares costs aren't even remotely that cheap.

Originally Posted by INDY500

I haven't been, it's called cost-shifting. Another form of cost-shifting is when Medicare or Medicaid cuts back on reimbursement rates and that loss of revenue is then passed on to private payers. Expect more of that one in the future.

How is the cost shifting here? Who was paying the costs of the uninsured before? Who is paying the cost now?

And a word on these "young and healthy" that don't want to buy insurance. Typical of youth (with no offense intended to youthful posters here) to assume that they are invincible, that "it will never happen to them" and so decline to buy insurance. Isn't that the height of irresponsibility?

[Irvine511]

5 years ago I was in a weird, freakish accident while I was out being young and healthy (swimming laps). I also had, and continue to have, a relatively high paying job (but no benefits) which afforded me the ability to buy private insurance on my own. If the accident had happened 1-2 years earlier, I only had catastrophic coverage. And there was a period when I had no insurance. A week in the ICU even with health insurance cost me over $2k, and the "real" cost was $17k. Therapy and a permanent injury plus medication that I must now take (flawless health history beforehand), has cost me at least $40k over the past 5 years. AND I PAY $250 A MONTH ON PRIVATE INSURANCE. I can afford it because im a childless homo with a liberal arts degree (horror) who works an urban elite snob evil media job that nets me significantly more than $40k a year ... What do other people do? Like people in red states with high unemployment and far, far higher health risks (like unwanted pregnancy and smoking)?