Obamacare’s threat goes beyond the individual mandate
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling Friday that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional is only part of the story. The rest of the story, with maybe the biggest impact, is that the court would let the rest of the law stand without the mandate.
And allowing that to happen could bankrupt the private health insurance industry — and put on the track to full-blown socialized medicine — even faster than an intact Obamacare threatens to do.
Everyone, from the Obama administration to the 26 states, including Georgia, that brought this lawsuit, agrees that the individual mandate is the key to the law because it is the mechanism for making people buy insurance before they become sick. The administration argues this is a reason for keeping the entire law intact; the states argue this is a reason for throwing out the entire law.
But unlike District Judge Roger Vinson, the appellate court decided that Congress didn’t have to include a “severability clause” for the law to survive even if one of its components were struck down:
Supreme Court precedent confirms that the “ultimate determination of severability will rarely turn on the presence or absence of such a clause.” … Rather, “Congress’ silence is just that — silence — and does not raise a presumption against severability.”
The court did examine two particular reforms to see if they should go out along with the mandate — noting that, without the mandate, the “guaranteed issue” and the ban on denials based on pre-existing conditions could “have significant negative effects on the business costs of insurers.” But it deferred to Congress nevertheless:
Just because the invalidation of the individual mandate may render these provisions less desirable, it does not ineluctably follow that Congress would find the two reforms so undesirable without the mandate as to prefer not enacting them at all. The fact that one provision may have an impact on another provision is not enough to warrant the inference that the provisions are inseverable. (italics original)
That may well be the right judicial decision. But it’s a policy disaster in the making.
At The Atlantic, Megan McArdle puts it this way:
Presumably, the insurance market across the United States [would end] up looking a lot like New York’s market, where during the debate over health care reform it was reported that the cost of the average family policy in the individual market was over $4,000 a month. That’s because New York has the other features of Obamacare — community rating and guaranteed issue — without the mandate. The result was that all the healthy people dropped out of the pool, leaving a few very sick people to buy insurance.
There’s a slight difference though: the government is going to subsidize individuals in the private market. If the subsidies keep pace with the cost, Obamacare’s nominal deficit reduction is going to turn into a gaping hole in the federal budget.
As she goes on to argue, Congress may not have the will to take away the other reforms piecemeal once they’ve come on line, even if they become financial drains.
All of which is why Republicans in Congress should continue pushing to repeal the entire law and replace it with market-oriented reforms, rather than counting on the courts to set things right.
(Note: See my commentary about the rest of the ruling here.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
215 comments Add your comment
11th Circuit says individual mandate is unconstitutional (4th update) | Kyle Wingfield
August 12th, 2011
5:09 pm
[...] at 5:10 p.m.: Rather than tackling the severability issue in this post, I’ve put up a separate item about [...]
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
5:32 pm
Kyle,
One more time you are on the wrong side of history. There is no fundamental reason to have private health insurance industry. If the result is, as you predict, their demise, so be it. But you use the usual demagoguery about “socialized medicine.” The medical providers would still remain mostly private even if we got a single payer system.
Gm
August 12th, 2011
5:35 pm
So Kyle I guess the 30 millions people including women and children should wait another 100 years before someone stands up and face this problem. How many Rep President tried reform and put people first?
Thanks President Obama for puting yourself one the line for the under dogs who can not fight big insurance and doctors who care less if you live or die.
Esperenza
August 12th, 2011
5:54 pm
So, lets see if I get this: the Bills Individual Mandate clause is being challenged on the premise its unconstitutional to require individuals to pay, yet this is identical in nature to requiring auto insurance,
so, as usual the politicians have no consistency to their logic, and grasp whatever is handy to ramrod rules through, or shoot them down depending – I say abolish auto insurance – we can then turn back the clock to a “simpler time”
Tman
August 12th, 2011
6:07 pm
Gm – Of what 30 millions people do you refer? Who has waited 100 years for someone to face what problem? Not trying to be funny, just trying to understand where you’re coming from and where you’re going with your argument.
Esperenza- This is NOT identical in nature to requiring auto insurance. Millions of people do not own a car, do not drive, and therefore are not required to purchase auto insurance.
jconservative
August 12th, 2011
6:14 pm
I repeat what I said earlier on the last column.
Note: The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says, nothing more and nothing less.
If the Supreme Court says “No Mandate”, then that is what the Constitution says.
To date the cases in all Circuit Courts have revolved around the Commerce Clause. And to date one Circuit Court says mandate is OK, another says “no mandate” and the third has yet to rule.
The Roberts court is a big supporter of an expanded Commerce Clause. So one would not be surprised if they said OK to the expanded Commerce Clause “mandate”.
But this is also a big “political case” and the Court is not immune to politics.
The 26 states appealed based on the Commerce Clause. Any other arguments are beside the point until the Supreme Court rules. And the Supreme Court can use any argument it chooses, just so there are 5 votes.
Obamacare may be the worst disaster to hit the USA in over 200 years. But if it is Constitutional, per the Supreme Court, then it is Constitutional.
Then you look to Congress to rescind it.
And if Congress can rescind Obamacare and the Prescription Drug mess, that is over $40 trillion in spending cuts.
Mae238
August 12th, 2011
6:15 pm
So, let’s pass a new law: Hospitals and doctors do not have to treat you if you cannot pay. Then watch everyone buy insurance. It’s harsh, but it would work. Right now hospitals are required to treat anyone who walks in their door. This is a huge factor in the increase of medical costs for all of us.
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
6:19 pm
Tman @6:07 pm: “Millions of people do not own a car, do not drive, and therefore are not required to purchase auto insurance.”
True. And people who are dead or have not been born would not be required to buy health isurance.
Scott
August 12th, 2011
6:26 pm
Esperanza,
You forget that auto insurance is not federally mandated but state mandated.
There’s a difference.
Tman
August 12th, 2011
6:26 pm
Sorry Mark V @6:19. Not following you. I may be dense.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
6:27 pm
If the courts can’t straighten out this mess, then it is time to start over.
This is just one more thing that people want for FREE. Only it is is not free. Every taxpayer in America will be paying for it while the government is already trillions in debt. Just add a couple of more trillions and give everybody FREE healthcare.
When Americans forgot independence and went for DEPENDENCE, then the USA went into debt. The government has become the citizen babysitter. Only we cannot pay for it.
There are hospitals and clinics all over this country for the poor. Drug companies offer help in getting meds. The few who can’t get help will always need help. They usually do not take advantage of what is offered.
I hope the court throws out this entire mess called ObamaCare. It will help no one but will be detrimental moneywise to almost everyone. No one will be healthy if we incur any more debt which is now rising in unprecented quantities. It’s got to stop.
david green
August 12th, 2011
6:27 pm
Re: All of which is why Republicans in Congress should continue pushing to repeal the entire law and replace it with market-oriented reforms, rather than counting on the courts to set things right.
_____________________________
Unfortunately any so call market-oriented reforms Republicans offer will be maliciously and intentionally designed to benefit the insurance companies and enhance their profits at the financial expense and the lives of their customers.
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
6:33 pm
Tman @6:26 pm:
The fallacy of your car insurance argument is that it tries to show the car insurance payment as a fee for owning or driving a car. It is not, it is a compulsory insurance in case of an accident, to make sure that the damage is paid. Thus the equivalent of driving a car is living. The purpose of the health insurance is to make sure that the medical bills are paid. Unless you want to commit suicide you do not have a choice to live without a danger of accident or injury.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 12th, 2011
6:37 pm
It’s gotten so bad for obozo that even the moonbats think they would have been better off with, check this out, Hillary.
Hahahahahahahahahaha, oh my.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
6:38 pm
David Green,
Republicans do not maliciously and intentionally design to benefit insurance companies. Insurance companies must make a profit like any other business that survives but to call that malicious covers more than Republicans.
Your slanted opinion is what ruins any discussion. ObamaCare has too many fallacies in it. It is not greed by Republicans but the presence of a flawed policy that should trouble everyone.
YES!!!!
August 12th, 2011
6:55 pm
Oh happy day!!! Finally, despite the devastating economic effect of policy that financially forces Americans to use the E.R. for primary healthcare, a precedent has been set that possibly paves the way to freedom from the shackles of homeowners insurance and car insurance! YES!!!!!
Aquagirl
August 12th, 2011
6:56 pm
Oh, man. If we have to depend on Congress to fix a bad situation, we are really screwed.
Derek
August 12th, 2011
7:05 pm
Here is what will happen if the individual mandate is repealed: things will hum along fine for a few years at first, and the system will seem to be working okay.
At some point there will be some shock that causes insurance prices to rise (ie. the baby boomers get to the point where they require a large amount of expensive healthcare). Insurance prices start going up, and healthy people decide stop buying insurance, driving up prices further.
To offset these costs a new class of business will form where, for a flat rate, they will buy insurance for you when you are sick, and cancel it when you are not sick. As people abandon the insurance companies for these intermediaries, health insurance costs spiral upwards until they cost as much as a sick person’s medical bills. The intermediaries in turn raise their rates until they cost as much as the insurance companies used to, and we end up back where we started.
Derek
August 12th, 2011
7:08 pm
People are again rejected for preexisting conditions, only it’s legal because it’s the intermediaries are doing the rejecting. Sure you can go to an insurance company and they can’t reject you, but since they now cost as much as your medical bills it hardly matters.
Derek
August 12th, 2011
7:08 pm
Of course none of this has to happen as long as we keep the individual mandate requiring everyone to have health insurance. I suspect that all of the rabble rousing about the individual mandate is just a sneaky way of rendering the health care bill irrelevant.
MakesMoreSense
August 12th, 2011
7:10 pm
The notion of, regardless of how long we have been doing business a certain way, of “brokering” healthcare as insurance companies do simply sickens me. Do away with the entire insurance industry! Individuals set up accounts with the hospital of choice, family physician of choice, and simply pay them directly, a set fee each month . You get sick, the doc is already paid for. Need surgery, monies paid go to the procedure needed, and perhaps on very expensive surgery’s an additional fee is required, . There are MASSIVE amounts of money spent that result in no, none, nada, zilch, improvement of healthcare rendered, and I would contend America’s healthcare for Americans is far worse off.
jt
August 12th, 2011
7:10 pm
Real men could care less what government lawyers say.
.
King George found that out the hard way.
.
Bring it.
GM
August 12th, 2011
7:19 pm
When business profits, it invests. This generally creates more opportunity and more jobs. You need some rich people to take the risk that they do or there would be no private jobs to support the government, and it’s dependants. Any of you who are not public sector union employess would be jobless without some rich person or group of persons taking a risk with their own money. Why does everyone comment on this topic without having the slightest clue? Right now, businesses (rich people) are not investing due to a guaranteed loss and certain increase in government regulation, therefore no additional opportunity, and no additional jobs. Please educate yourselves on both sides before commenting (liberals). Maybe you should thank your rich boss for the job instead of complaining about him/her, and his/her investment in you.
Phil's Tel-A-Gramm
August 12th, 2011
7:50 pm
What’s that you say! There can be no mandate for automobile insurance!
Phil's Tel-A-Gramm
August 12th, 2011
7:52 pm
Your desires have been rescinded, Kyle.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
7:58 pm
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
6:33 pm
Your comparison is worse than between that of apple and orange.
Auto insurance is required because one mustdrive on roads that are owned by the state. That is a matter of securing public safety which is NOT the same as assuring payment of a private debt acquired for medical expenses.
Furthermore, States have the Right to issue driver’s licenses, which means the State not the individual, makes all the rules, sets all the terms and conditions in order for the individual to enjoy the privilege NOT THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle on any and all roads within the States’ jurisdiction. The Right to Live is an endowment bestowed upon all individuals by their creator which is not a conditional privilege grant to them by a State government.
This liberal argument using auto insurance to merit State compulsory healthcare insurance is one of the lamest of incoherent analogizes ever used.
Hillbilly D
August 12th, 2011
8:00 pm
There are only 9 people whose opinions are going to matter on this. What I think or what anybody else thinks, doesn’t really matter.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
8:16 pm
Hillbilly D
August 12th, 2011
8:00 pm
You know time was when only one opinion mattered on things like this, at least until we had a revolution. Those 9 people are probably very well aware of that fact and usually keep all of our opinions in their mind when making their official legal opinions known.
Then again, if enough contrary opinions are strongly held to point of amending the Constitution even those 9 opinions really don’t make a shid!
david green
August 12th, 2011
8:28 pm
Yes they do Dusty and any claim to the contrary is a lie. For years now I’ve watched how republicans talk conservative to get elected into office then turn their backs on these who voted them into office to serve the interests of big business in order to pay them back for donating to their campaign fund. World Com – Dick Cheney’s connection to Haliburton – the resultant fraud of contractors who did shoddy work in Iraq – the failure of the Bush admin. to properly regulate the banks and wall street that led to the economic collapse in 2008 – tainted food that killed many of our fellow American’s because Bush hobbled those responsible for ensuring the safety of the common food supply. All these and more come to mind. The simple fact is that republicans have dirty hands and those conservatives who ignore the many sins of the politicians they support either with their words or votes are just as dirty and morally accountable.
david green
August 12th, 2011
8:33 pm
Actually GM capitalists aren’t investing in the US as a tried and true means to force Obama to fail and convince the American people to vote him out of office. In other words they are committing Economic Treason against the people of the United States.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
8:37 pm
Simple fact is the Democrats have very dirty hands in all things too!
And my opinion of liberals is no less damning than the one you have of conservatives.
Now what?
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
Michael H. Smith @7:58 pm
Your argument is an utter, complete nonsense. “Auto insurance is required because one must drive on roads that are owned by the state. That is a matter of securing public safety which is NOT the same as assuring payment of a private debt acquired for medical expenses” Where do you get such silly ideas?
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
8:49 pm
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
Utter and complete non-sense is the bases for your argument not mine. When you get in touch with reality you’ll no longer your have silly ideas.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
8:50 pm
“So, lets see if I get this: the Bills Individual Mandate clause is being challenged on the premise its unconstitutional to require individuals to pay, yet this is identical in nature to requiring auto insurance,
so, as usual the politicians have no consistency to their logic”
Esperanza, you don’t get this.
Auto insurance is mandated (however wrongly) because you use the government-provided road system they built. And arguably, there is a public safety component to driving which could come under the control of government.
Health care is not provided by the government, but rather by a private provider, therefore a mandate is un-Constitutional in that regard.
I’m glad I could clear that up for you.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
8:55 pm
I’d argue the point against assumed wrong in the auto insurance mandate Dave R., otherwise we agree.
david green
August 12th, 2011
8:55 pm
First off Michael the state does not own the roads. The real owners are the citizens who live within that state who have entrusted the state to maintain the roads and to regulate them. Just as our Creator has endowed us with the right to life so has he endowed us with the right to move about freely which the state can not impede without becoming tyrannical. Mandatory Auto insurance was not created by the state to protect the citizens involved in an accident – for that was merely the excuse and the justification to seize a portion of the financial assets of those who need to drive a vehicle in order to take advantage of their natural right to move about freely and redistribute those financial assets into the bank accounts of the insurance companies. In other words the Auto Insurance companies and state politicians have willfully conspired to commit theft. Just as the heath insurance companies in the past have conspired to rob those who bought their policies while healthy only to be denied coverage and/or have their rates raised so high that they couldn’t afford to pay it after becoming afflicted with an illness.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:03 pm
“First off Michael the state does not own the roads.”
Oh yeah? Try dismantling the road outside your house someday. You’ll find out very quickly who owns them.
Sheesh!
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
9:08 pm
First off david green, we citizens are the “real state” so YES “THE STATE” owns the roads. “Freedom of movement” is not solely dependent upon traveling on STATE OWNED ROADS, bad point and poor logic on your part. Argue your point all you want about those greedy insurance companies in cahoots with the pols before the courts see where it gets you, and let me know when you plan to hold that circus – I’ll buy a ticket! Maybe two.
And you don’t have to buy health insurance at gun point, so how do you think “they” (the insurance companies) are robbing you?
Furthmore, Bush was a liberal.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:10 pm
The reason I’d argue about whether they have the right to do so is through the public safety clause they rely on. I understand it; I just don’t necessarily buy into it.
Phil's Tel-A-Gramm
August 12th, 2011
9:10 pm
The road in front of my house is private. Then there are municipal roads and county roads and state roads.
david green
August 12th, 2011
9:14 pm
Personally – since healthcare isn’t a right – I would like to see the entire healthcare industry shut down so that everyone {both rich and poor} is forced to live and die in the manner that Nature intended without interference from doctors and medical technology.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:17 pm
“The road in front of my house is private.”
Congratulations. I see the point is lost on you.
Phil's Tel-A-Gramm
August 12th, 2011
9:21 pm
I wonder if the Republican constituency has read this one.
And I see Dave R. cannot accept the fact that he is wrong about who owns the roads.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:21 pm
“Personally – since healthcare isn’t a right – I would like to see the entire healthcare industry shut down so that everyone {both rich and poor} is forced to live and die in the manner that Nature intended without interference from doctors and medical technology.”
Oh my freakin’ God!
Driving isn’t a right. Do we get rid of cars and walk because it is how nature intended us to travel? And don’t bother to use a horse, because that would be cheating, right?
Instead of mindless hyperbole, why don’t you make the case that health care is a right (if you believe it to be), or suggest something different that might be helpful.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:22 pm
Hey, Phil.
Former county commissioner here.
You want to try to tell me I’m wrong about the roads?
Go ahead.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
9:22 pm
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:10 pm
Agreed. Particularly with this well made point applicable to most all other disagreeable government things: I understand it; I just don’t necessarily buy into it.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 12th, 2011
9:26 pm
So how much of a laughingstock will obozo become? Will he make Dhimmi Karter appear cerebral and as though he has a spine? Will he make Herbert Hoover look like the second coming of Milton Friedman?
After this tragedy/comedy finally plays out, will the nation have a new found respect for Andrew Jackson?
How much more must we endure?
Drifter
August 12th, 2011
9:28 pm
Personally, I don’t think we can do any worse than we’re doing now. If the health insurance industry dies a quick death, good riddance. We pay roughly 50% more for health care than countries with “socialized” medicine, we don’t cover everyone and we get poor results. I think it’s funny that the GOP now has ideas on how to fix the problem. They’d be more believable if they’d come up with it when they had the power to implement it.
xCalaber
August 12th, 2011
9:29 pm
If I read the liberal arugment right. It’s a version of damn the constitution, we want to do what we like. Where does that end? What power does not belong to the state. The liberal argument is that the problem confers power to the all important government.
Of course this is all sophmoric nonsense. The constitution is still the supreme authority AND it actually means something. It creates limits that we cannot pass when inconvient. You can’t radically expand the power of the government to command citizens to buy a particular service for the rest of their lives without giving the state the power to end freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the same breath.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 12th, 2011
9:33 pm
MarkV: There is no fundamental reason to have private health insurance industry.
————————
Wrong again. There is a reason to have a health insurance industry–people want to buy it.
Keep your fascism off my health care.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
August 12th, 2011
9:33 pm
Isn’t this hilarious to watch? The dummycrats had a choice between obozo and bruno and they chose the blowhard. And now they wish they had picked her of the “Reset Button” and maker of perpetual war upon shot out second hand dictators.
Somebody please pass the vodka.
david green
August 12th, 2011
9:34 pm
Michael if bush was a liberal than why did conservatives elect him into office for second term after he used the Supreme Court to steal the first election?
The fact is that in our society it is impossible to move about freely without using a state – county or city road which the state claims jurisdiction over when it comes to mandatory auto insurance. So by demanding that those who need cars to exercise their right move around freely or face punishment if they refuse to comply the state is indeed forcing those individuals to purchase auto insurance at the point of a gun.
Now it is only logical to conclude that if the state can regulate commerce by requiring auto insurance then the Fed. Govt. can regulate commerce by requiring everyone to purchase health insurance in order to regulate the healthcare industry. Simply because at some point in their lives more people then not are going to need the services of a doctor and/or a hospital.
Or are you and your fellow conservatives advocating that those who can’t afford healthcare be allowed to die in the streets?
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
9:35 pm
David Green,
I see you are a real sucker for propaganda. Obviously a hangover from the Bush administration. The most obvious of your failures is you believing that companies are not making a profit just to discredt Obama. What a crock! Companies are in business to make and sell at a profit so they can stay in business. If there are no buyers they make no profit and business is not good. Companies do not make economic decision based on grudges against a president. They make decisions based on what is good and what shows some profit..
Your continued propaganda lies about Haliburton and Cheney also come from the brainwashing division. Cheney was head of Halliburton at one time. It is one of the few companies large enough to handle huge world shipments needed by our armed forces. Did you think UPS would handle it? Cheney has been an asset and wise part of our government. He was able to determine and speak the truth at all costs. Those trying to undermine; Bush and those handling tough times tried to incriminate everyone in the Bush administration.
If you want to look for people with poor past records, you don’t have to look far. How about Obama’s cabinet? There’s a crowd that needs no make up stories. Some couldn’t even pay their taxes. Why don’t you remember them instead of your makebelieve stories pulled from a Dem propaganda bin?
Gordon
August 12th, 2011
9:35 pm
I am against Obamacare, but I am for the individual mandate. We end up paying anyway, so why not make someone buy insurance? But if its unconstitutional, its unconstitutional.
david green
August 12th, 2011
9:39 pm
xCalaber wrote:
The constitution is still the supreme authority AND it actually means something. It creates limits that we cannot pass when inconvient. You can’t radically expand the power of the government to command citizens to buy a particular service for the rest of their lives without giving the state the power to end freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the same breath.
——————————-
Why Not? Conservative republicans do it all the time whenever they are elected into public office. They only despise it and talk the small limited gov. nonsense when they are out of power.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:39 pm
“We pay roughly 50% more for health care than countries with “socialized” medicine, we don’t cover everyone and we get poor results.”
Drifter, that “poorer results” meme has been around a long time, and it is positively wrong.
When the WHO takes into consideration all their factors in determining their scores, they neglect to take into effect the analysis of what a “freer” society can do to skew results. For instance, they do not take into effect deaths by driving accidents, gun discharges or crimes. They just get bundled into the same hopper under “life expectancy”. Obviously, none of the above (and a few more I haven’t named) have ANYTHING to do with the quality of health care provided, yet death rates count for quite a bit in the WHO scoring model.
We have a great health care system; better than most in fact. We just need to find a better way to pay for it, and that will only happen when government gets out of the business of regulating it as much as they do.
david green
August 12th, 2011
9:46 pm
Unfortunately Dusty I see that you have imbibed a little too much of the spiked koolaid conservatives have been dishing out to the sheep who mindlessly follow them. The truth is there is no such thing as an honest politician and truly honest people don’t go into politics and stay honest for the system is corrupt and corrupts absolutely. However those who want to enrich themselves at the public trough and wish to sate their passion to dominate and rule over the rest of us have no such qualms.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:48 pm
“Michael if bush was a liberal than why did conservatives elect him into office for second term after he used the Supreme Court to steal the first election?”
OK, full disclosure. I never voted for Bush.
But to answer your question, when given the choice between Bush and Kerry, I’d probably go with the devil I knew than the worst excuse for a U.S. Senator in the history of the modern Senate.
And the “stole the election” thingy? Really?
I suppose you think that only recounting the ballots in selected, Democrat-majority precincts would be considered “fair and equal”, right? All the Supremes did was mandate that if any precincts were going to be recounted using a new visual standard, ALL precincts had to be recounted the same way.
“Or are you and your fellow conservatives advocating that those who can’t afford healthcare be allowed to die in the streets?”
Of course. How else could we use them for food?
Soylent Green is no longer to us conservatives, didn’t you know that?
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
9:49 pm
More washed out propaganda from David Green.
Bush did not steal any election. He was elected quite legally. Dems made a try at changing that but they failed.
People are not dying in the streets. They can go to any emergency room and get treatment. It is the law.
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
9:49 pm
Michael H. Smith @8:49 pm: I wish it were not so late, but at least briefly:
“Auto insurance is required because one must drive on roads that are owned by the state.”
In the equivalence I was writing about, I would then say:” Health insurance is required because we live in this country.” Auto insurance is nor required BECAUSE one must drive on roads that are owned by the state.” That is just a circumstance, which give the state the ground in requiring the insurance.
“That is a matter of securing public safety…” How is public safety secured by insurance?
“…NOT the same as assuring payment of a private debt acquired for medical expenses”
I did not write anything about medical expenses; I wrote about damages. The insurance is about damages. Have you not noticed? “Financial responsibility laws in every state require all automobile drivers to show proof, after an accident, of their ability to pay damages up to the state minimum.”
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:50 pm
“The truth is there is no such thing as an honest politician and truly honest people don’t go into politics and stay honest for the system is corrupt and corrupts absolutely.”
Disagree. I was one of them. Some of us are not for sale, but unfortunately, are a rare few.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:52 pm
That should read: “Soylent Green is no longer FICTION to us conservatives, didn’t you know that?”
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
9:53 pm
BTW, Hiya, Dusty!
Braves not playing tonight?
david green
August 12th, 2011
9:55 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout:
1) There is no right to buy or purchase healthcare.
2) Conservatism is Stealth Fascism
3) Socialism and Fascism are different sides of the same coin just as liberalism and conservatism
4) Both liberals and conservatives are like the pigs in Georgia Orwell’s Animal Farm who declared that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
10:01 pm
David Green,
If there ever was a sheep, you sound like one, an old one at that. Still harping on Bush when Obama is about as popular as chicken pox with a string of broken promises and a rising debt that he wants to increase (with such as Obamacare.)
Have fun with your mindset on anything but todays problems. Keep blaming Bush while Obama is president. But someone should tell you. Things are NOT going good for Obama. Really!! Now that’s the truth you want to ignore.
Hillbilly D
August 12th, 2011
10:01 pm
Didn’t George W Bush have more votes after the recount than before? That’s my recollection.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
10:08 pm
Hi Dave R,
The BRAVES are playing! Yes sir!! They were doing quite well the last time I checked. I hope Minor is still going strong. Such a good team!! .
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:14 pm
Hillbilly D:
According to former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano in his book Lies the Government told you: Myth – Power and Deception… {the supreme court} assaulted federalism by denying the state of Florida the right to manage its mechanisms of voting and interpreting its own laws.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 12th, 2011
10:15 pm
david green: There is no right to buy or purchase healthcare.
—————————–
Ever heard of the equal protection clause? Try denying someone the ability to purchase healthcare somewhere and see what happens.
Hillbilly D
August 12th, 2011
10:17 pm
Dusty’s Braves beat up on the Cubs. Sort of like a light workout.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
10:18 pm
“According to former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano in his book Lies the Government told you: Myth – Power and Deception… {the supreme court} assaulted federalism by denying the state of Florida the right to manage its mechanisms of voting and interpreting its own laws.”
Which might be why he’s a commentator on Fox News and no longer a sitting judge.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
10:23 pm
HillBilly D
Braves! Just a light “workout!! I’ll say. BRAVES won 10 to 4! That’s what I call a wipeout!!
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:24 pm
Dusty I do not support obama or the democratic party nor the republicans the conservatives champion because I’m sick and tired of being lied too by both the liberals and the conservatives. On the other hand I’m also tired of reading about people being forced into bankruptcy by the healthcare system which enriches itself at the expense of the sick and dying like a vulture feeds on roadkill. And of the insurance companies whose business model was intentionally designed to fleece their customers. At least Obama is trying to remedy these abuses and until conservatives are willing to bring a better idea to the table they need to stop whining like a baby who needs its diaper changed.
gator24
August 12th, 2011
10:26 pm
I guess the 30 to 50 million people who don’t have health insurance will continue use the Hospital emergency rooms for free. Ignorance is bliss. Unbelievable
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
10:27 pm
“until conservatives are willing to bring a better idea to the table”
They did.
The Dem majority in the House didn’t even let their ideas get to committee.
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:27 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout show me in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where it states that an individual has the right to purchase healthcare. Put up or shut up!
Don
August 12th, 2011
10:32 pm
The problem with comparing this to auto insurance is that you are only required to purchase insurance to protect the OTHER person. You don’t have to have insurance to replace your own car. In this case insurance is only required to protect the other person. Most people purchase insurance on their own car because the gov. won’t buy them a new car when they wreck the first one.
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:33 pm
Dave R. wrote:
“until conservatives are willing to bring a better idea to the table”
They did.
The Dem majority in the House didn’t even let their ideas get to committee.
___________________
Too bad so sad Dave R. that’s what happens when a political party chooses to serve the financial interests of their big business campaign contributors instead of faithfully serving the people who elected them into office. Simply put the republicans had their chance when bush was in office but choose instead to pursue the policies that ultimately led to the collapse of the economy on bush’s watch. They waited too late.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 12th, 2011
10:34 pm
david green, unless you believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, everyone has equal access to public accomodations such as health care providers. If you want some health care, go out and buy some. No one can stop you.
Prove me wrong. Didn’t think so.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 12th, 2011
10:35 pm
Auto insurance is only required if you’re such a loser that you can’t self-insure.
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:36 pm
Lil Barry Bailout conservatives don’t actually believe in the equal protection clause else they would argue that every one should be treated equally and not just the moneyed class: those who can afford to buy equal protection.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
10:43 pm
david green,
I’m not surprised that you cannot find a political system that suits you. So everything is rotten from politics to insurance companies and just about everything else. The vultures are out to get you!! Yuo blame everybody else for your problems.
Wake up, buddy. You live in the best country in the world and don’t even know it.
President Obama may be trying to help us (but but but) haven’t you noticed? He is steadily increasing the debt of the USA which is hanging over us like Damocles sword. But he does not SEEM to notice. His lack of experience and poor economic knowledge become more obvious every day. He wants to spend more money to get out of debt. Now there is something defintely wrong with that logic.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
10:43 pm
david green, you won’t find me defending GWB on any site, with the exception of how he handled 9/11.
Otherwise, his term (and that of the GOP Congress he had pretty much sucked.
However, your comment back to me was what is known as a deflection. When you can’t defend your own position, or cannot debunk mine, people like you revert to blaming others or changing the subject. As such, my comment wasn’t about what the Congress of GWB failed to do, but was one that described what the GOP wasn’t ALLOWED to do during the only debate on health care reform at the time.
Now, if you wish to stay on point and discuss / debunk that point I made, please do so. But don’t go off on a tangent that does not apply to the point being made.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
10:44 pm
MarkV
August 12th, 2011
9:49 pm
In the equivalence I was writing about, I would then say:” Health insurance is required because we live in this country.”
And you dare to talk about nonsense, silliness and I’ll go you one worse “the damn stupidity” after making that kind of remark in a response!?
Nah, you are not worth the time of a sensible adult conversation let alone logical debate. The supreme court will take obumercare up very soon I’d predict, now that the case is ripe and two circuit courts offered differing opinions.
Stick around socialist liberals, I got an itch neath my skin that says you Marxist are not going to like what shall become the settled law of the land.
Yes, the settled law…
I noticed alot, mostly that you are a Marxist and argue the same silly trite all fascist socialist rely upon.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
10:45 pm
Oh, and the “show me where in the Constitution” argument is somewhere on par with third or fourth grade debating skills.
The Constitution is a LIMITING document on government powers, and was not designed to enumerate each and every product / situation government may control.
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:47 pm
Just as I thought Lil Barry Bailout instead of taking the challenge you chose the conservative cowardly trick of bringing out the smoke and mirrors. It just so happens that in my opinion the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional because Congress is imposing the rights of the minority upon the majority which became necessary to stop the oppression of that minority by the majority. It is called: Turn about is fair play!
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
10:49 pm
Michael, the interesting thing is how the Supremes will approach this ruling, and it is based on what each side does on appeal.
Does the government appeal only the mandate? Probably.
But does that mean the states appeal the severability aspect?
The Supremes might still give us a win-win (or heaven forbid, a lose-lose) if both should happen.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 12th, 2011
10:49 pm
david green must not be familiar with Bush v. Gore if he thinks conservatives don’t believe in equal protection.
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:56 pm
Actually Dave R. I told you the truth something that your itching ears have so stomach for. Now the name of the healthcare reform bill put forth by republicans {social Darwin’s} that did not pass was?
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:58 pm
That’s right Dave R. the Constitution is a limiting document and its too bad that republicans before and after Lincoln have disregarded that fact when it suits them to do so.
david green
August 12th, 2011
10:59 pm
Lil Barry Bailout Actions speak louder then words.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:01 pm
Dave R., I’d say win-win, and oh do I ever hope the severability aspect goes the same way the recent immigration ruling went in support of States Rights “broadly viewed” . Broad enough to include strict reliance on the Federalist papers 41 and 45.
I want to roll back Hilary’s fascist clock to the time before Woodrow Wilson and Democrats stepped outside the Constitution to legislate, so the socialist pee-gressives in this country howl… oops bray, for a 1,000 years.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:02 pm
david green, there were actually a minimum of 7 different bills submitted to Congress by Republicans regarding health care reform in 2008 – 2009. NONE of them got past Democrat-controlled committees. Rather than trying to fix everything (badly) as the Democrat bill did, the GOP attempts were very specifically targeted to address certain issues that needed intelligent reform.
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:02 pm
Dusty wrote:
President Obama may be trying to help us (but but but) haven’t you noticed? He is steadily increasing the debt of the USA which is hanging over us like Damocles sword. But he does not SEEM to notice. His lack of experience and poor economic knowledge become more obvious every day. He wants to spend more money to get out of debt. Now there is something defintely wrong with that logic.
__________________________
Dusty you would have a point if the republicans didn’t waste our tax dollars on meddling in the affairs of other nations and weren’t so hell bent on establishing an American Empire.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:06 pm
“That’s right Dave R. the Constitution is a limiting document and its too bad that republicans before and after Lincoln have disregarded that fact when it suits them to do so.”
Thanks for admitting that your “show me where in the Constitution” argument is so very third-grade, david green.
And don’t dismiss Lincoln in disregarding the Constitution, nor all Democrats, david. Lincoln was the worst Federalist-empowering President we had up until that time, and for many years afterwards until we were cursed with Teddy Roosevelt. Then we were doubly cursed with his misbegotten cousin Franklin Delano.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:07 pm
Michael, I’m hoping for the win-win, but Justice Kennedy is such a crap shoot on many issues.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
11:08 pm
gator 24
Just because you don’t have health insurance does NOT mean that you are sick. It may mean that you consider yourself healthy and don’t need it(most young people). Or they may not be able to afford it. Or they may go to the ER and pay for one time visits. Free is for those who really do not have the money. You should find out more about healthcare in America before you condemn it.
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:08 pm
Dave R. wrote: Rather than trying to fix everything (badly) as the Democrat bill did, the GOP attempts were very specifically targeted to address certain issues that needed intelligent reform.
______
Now that is a real hoot. I’ve been observing the republicans for years now and they have yet to demonstrate a willingness to serve the people instead of their campaign donors much less actual intelligence unless your equating social Darwinism and self centerness as intelligence.
Abella
August 12th, 2011
11:09 pm
If the mandate is struck down but the rest of the laws stays, then the health care risk pools will have adverse selection. This will result in higher costs that will be spread throughout the health insurance industry. Both individual and employer based plans will likely see higher increases than historical averages. The current trend of employers dropping health insurance for employees will escalate in those industries that can get away with it. I don’t think you will see socialized medicine any time soon because that concept is so unpopular. I do think insurance fraud will escalate as people try to share the costs of one policy. I also think more peole will try to get onto Medicaid while the US can still afford it and more people will also try to get SSD so they can get on Medicare.
Right now insurance companies can refuse to sell health insurance plans to any individual not meeting the underwriting requirements filed with the states insurance commissioner. They can also decline to make offers to employers – and they will if the risk is too great.
Obamacare
yuzeyurbrane
August 12th, 2011
11:10 pm
Decision from 11th Cir. is not a great surprise. Even if they ruled the other way, the law’s validity would have eventually been determined by the Supremes. How they will rule is an open question. Now, if the Supremes follow 11th Cir. it would present practical problems generally along the lines Kyle points out. This in fact could lead to result Kyle would not like–the Court upholding the law. Rather than draconian steps Kyle suggests, the good parts of the law could be saved just by modifying the provision re insurance requirement to make it incentive instead, like currently done with Medicare Part B. You aren’t required to purchase Part B when you turn 65, but there is an increasing premium surcharge for each year you delay. Most sign up for Part B relatively soon. Americans will otherwise like the new law despite all the scare tactics being utilized now and Congress will be under pressure to make this 1 modification to make the law feasible. Additionally, the private insurance companies will not want the costs of no modification and have the incentive of millions of new customers if they have the incentive modification, so they will be leaning on Congress to do the right thing. That is the reasonable way to go. But, of course, there are no reasonable Teapeople, so maybe we will choose the banana republic method of health care.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:11 pm
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:02 pm
Oh really, it’s the republicans is it david green? In the last century, david green, what political party led this country into most of the wars this country fought?
Don’t hurt yourself straining to come up with an answer, it was “YOUR DAMN MEDDLING UNITED NATIONS BUILDING DEMOCRATS”!
Ray
August 12th, 2011
11:13 pm
Where is the replacement? Human suffering and decency cried for health care insurance reform, but Georgia has deaf ears, and no soul. Now that the health care reform bill might blow a hole in the deficit, you are willing to look at reform, now (hum)?!!! You are all heart, Kyle.
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:14 pm
One of the best things Teddy R did was to force the meat packing companies to clean up their act. Then came along the fast food restaurants and their owners friends in congress {once again republicans} who conspired to destroy those reforms so that once again the public is forced to endure having tainted food foisted upon them. Read Fast Food Nation.
Abella
August 12th, 2011
11:15 pm
Helps everyone get covered and has some measures, like the individual mandate, to reduce adverse selection. It doesn’t reduce costs and leaves too many loop holes for adverse selection within the risk pool. It also doesn’t address physician shortages or malpractice costs, both of which can lead to higher insurance expenses. The GOPs marketplace ideas will help with costs a little bit but not a lot. It will really only help in States that don’t already have adequate competition, like AL, or in states with higher than avg coverage requirements.
Anthony Kennedy will decide whether the individual mandate is constitutional.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
11:16 pm
My goodness, now David Green has gone to “Republicans establishing an empire”.
I did not know OBAMA was a Republican. He is the latest to send troops to a fight. Libya, that is.. and without any approval from Congress. Some empire. Some Republican! Ya coulda fooled me!
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:17 pm
And yet Michael it was Lincoln {a republican} that set the precedent and the example for those dems you abhor.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:18 pm
david green, as always you are free to debunk my assertions with facts, or uninformed opinion.
Your choice.
Thus far I’ve seen none of the former, and much of the latter from you.
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:20 pm
Dusty
The fact of the matter is that republicans and democrats are competing in a race to destroy this country in order to impose their own special brand of tyranny on the rest of us. The debate over healthcare is just one of many sideshows to divert unwanted attention from their real agenda.
david green
August 12th, 2011
11:22 pm
Thank-you Dave R for proving my point about there being no such animal as an honest politician.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:26 pm
“And yet Michael it was Lincoln {a republican} that set the precedent and the example for those dems you abhor.”
Teh stoopid. It burns . . .
Precedent and example? Really? You’re going to hang your hat on THAT?
Let’s see, Lincoln went to war to keep the U.S. together as a nation. Some still argue that it might have been better to just let the South go.
Every other Democrat went to war against a foe that hadn’t threatened American shores. WWI could be argued that it would have been won without our help. WWII cannot. But Korea and Vietnam didn’t affect our national security interests one bit, while WWII could be argued that it would have eventually been the case.
But other than that the Late Unpleasantness had nothing in common with every other war we’ve fought, you nailed it, david green!
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:28 pm
And yet Michael it was Lincoln {a republican} that set the precedent and the example for those dems you abhor.
Name the precedent you didn’t cite and I’ll be glad to counter your on that line of thought.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:28 pm
“Thank-you Dave R for proving my point about there being no such animal as an honest politician.”
Really, david? Point out any lie I have told. Go ahead. be detailed about it.
I just want to nail your misbegotten hide to the blogging wall when you’re proven wrong.
Mary Sue
August 12th, 2011
11:29 pm
Dusty, you are flat out wrong. The health care insurance bill has already helped a lot of people. Specifically: People who were denied access to health care insurance (for the lamest of reasons), can now buy insurance directly from the government until 2014, when the health care insurance polls will be fully operational. It is expensive, but I am thrilled to have coverage. It is just too bad that Georgians had no where to go to get protections, like most all the other states provided. Has anyone heard a peep from our new Insurance Commissioner. Nay, he still allows Georgia insurance companies to cherry pick their clients. If you are over-the-hill, the insurance companies might as well advertise
” 50+ Need not apply”.
Steve
August 12th, 2011
11:29 pm
Sigh. We shoot ourselves in the foot with our own ignorance.
My Canadian relatives just laugh at the health insurance nonsense here – they love their system of base care covered via a large pool and you get supplemental (often free via your employer) insurance to cover the deductibles and gaps. The poor get base coverage, the middle and upper classes basically have free healthcare and GOOD healthcare. They pay less per person on this than we do.
But in America, we are stuck with a system of middlemen, ridiculously high pharmaceutical costs, and insurance rates that have been escalating for decades.
But say “single payer” and the nutjobs come out of the woodwork screaming socialism. We only hurt ourselves via buying into the propoganda of big business and the wealthy that control us. Wake up people – this isn’t rocket science.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
11:30 pm
Well, I am going and get some sleep. Now david green is criminalizing Burger King (my favorite) and other fast foodies as dispensing spoiled food. If that were true, I’d be dead.
This poor guy really has a bee in his bonnet (and not much else). May he find some sunshine tomorrow because he has not seen any today..
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:34 pm
Canada awaits all you socialist single payer loving comrades, anytime you Marxist nut-jobs want to leave it’s find by me.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:37 pm
Canada is a relatively good system, but it suffers in the category of wait times. Not a deal breaker, but they do have some serious issues with common specialists we can see in days, vs. their being able to see the same in months.
Steve
August 12th, 2011
11:38 pm
“Canada awaits all you socialist single payer loving comrades, anytime you Marxist nut-jobs want to leave it’s find by me.”
I rest my case. We are letting the idiots in America take the rest of us down via their ignorance.
Steve
August 12th, 2011
11:39 pm
Try to get into seeing a good dermatologist in town in Atlanta – takes months. Live in the country and need a good specialist? Same problem here in America.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:41 pm
Yeah and one other thing Dusty, BK would be out of business.
Then again, this is still America, if you want to eat nothing but junk food to the point that it kills you, then that’s for you to decide, not me or the GUB’MENT!
PS. So long as you pay your medical bills and pay for your funeral.
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:44 pm
Steve, there is a huge difference in waiting to see “a good dermatologist” in Atlanta (heaven forbid we don’t look our best!), and waiting months for a CT scan or MRI. And how’d you like to wait six months to see a cardiologist? The wait alone could exacerbate the situation you’re seeing him or her in the first place!
I can see any of those within days, maybe a week and a half at most. Not so in Canada.
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:44 pm
Your case needs a rest. I’m not stopping you from getting anything. You have only your own inability or stupidity to blame for your complaints not me.
Dusty
August 12th, 2011
11:44 pm
Mary Sue,
“Now buy their insurance from the government!” There’s your ticket. Get the taxpayers to pay for almost everything if you can and just add it to the great big ol’ debt hanging over us.
Maybe you and Steve can move to Canada (or Cuba) and that will keep you strong and healthy. But keep our telephone number handy. When surgery gets tough, Canadians come to the USA.
When the population of Canada equals that of the USA, let me know how it is working out. Or check on Massachusetts. Seems government health care did not work out too well when tried in that state. But it worked in Canada. OK.. They must have a better plan than ObamaCare.
G’nite..
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:45 pm
It appears that david green cuts and runs when challenged with providing proof, doesn’t it, Michael?
Michael H. Smith
August 12th, 2011
11:53 pm
Yep!
About the same goes for these socialist yo-yos that claim we are the reason they can’t get healthcare, when what they won’t admit to, is that since they are entitled they just want us or someone else to pay their medical bills, food cost, housing cost, education… Oh well you get the picture.. same old socialist trite: You and the world owes me, because I’m here and alive!
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
11:55 pm
With that, I’m outta here for the evening.
Moderate Line
August 13th, 2011
6:24 am
Dave R.
August 12th, 2011
8:50 pm
Auto insurance is mandated (however wrongly) because you use the government-provided road system they built. And arguably, there is a public safety component to driving which could come under the control of government.
++++++++++
Just because the state owns the road why would that give the state the right to require care insurance? Typically, when an accident occurs it has no impact on the owner of the road. There are roads which are privately own does this mean that such a requirement is void on a private road.
The reason the state requires car insurance to be purchases has nothing to do with who owns the road. There are private toll rolls and I believe the state requirement is still in place. It is simply about ensuring that the person at fault in an auto accident has enough insurance to cover the cost of an accident in which they are libel.
Moderate Line
August 13th, 2011
6:51 am
The most interesting thing about American healthcare is it provide great access at a high cost and provides mediocre results.
The United States ranks 1 in access, 180 in cost per capita and 72 in pure results. What is interesting is the main concern of the left is distribution and the United States performs a fairly modest 32.
The main reason I oppose Obama care is it will make modest improvements in healthcare distribution with probably an increase in cost where we are already performing poorly.
However, those who defend our one of kind private distribution of health care need to look at the performance and cost of out system. It is simply not performing very well and it cost allot.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 13th, 2011
6:55 am
Steve: We are letting the idiots in America take the rest of us down via their ignorance.
————————
9% unemployment, $1.5 trillion annual deficits, record numbers on food stamps, record low labor participation rate. Amen, Steve.
Moderate Line
August 13th, 2011
7:02 am
Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 13th, 2011
6:55 am
Steve: We are letting the idiots in America take the rest of us down via their ignorance.
————————
9% unemployment, $1.5 trillion annual deficits, record numbers on food stamps, record low labor participation rate. Amen, Steve
+++++
For once I agree with you. People like you are bringing us down.
Skip
August 13th, 2011
7:20 am
If you want medical care for all and a AAA credit rating move to one of the other dozen industrialized countries, we have wars to fund.
Phil's Tel-A-Gramm
August 13th, 2011
7:32 am
Dave R,
You’re wrong about roads.
Show Low Here We Come
August 13th, 2011
7:47 am
the “conservative” position is really quite simple – if you are too poor to buy health insurance, then you you are better off dead. that way, you’re no longer a drag on society. only the strong — and strong = rich — survive. ironically, the one tenant of Darwinian theory they do believe in.
RonD
August 13th, 2011
8:39 am
I remember when automobile insurance was not mandatory in Georgia. One of the arguments the state used in making it mandatory was that by requiring all drivers to be insured, the insurance premiums would go down. Sounds good, but when Georgia passed the “no fault” insurance bill, insurance companies started RAISING premiums. When insurance was voluntary, competition kept the premiums down. After it was mandatory, the companies had you over the barrel and raised premiums. Same thing will happen with health insurance.
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
8:53 am
Moderate, I’m talking about the state’s justification in mandating auto insurance, not my agreement with it.
As I said in an earlier post, I understand their reasoning; I don’t necessarily agree with it.
Either way, when people try to justify a mandate to purchase health insurance by citing the auto insurance mandate, I use the fact that roads are built by the government, owned by the government and maintained by the government, therefore (in the government’s eyes) they can mandate something prior to use.
No such ownership exists in the world of the health care provider, therefore, the attempt to justify the mandate in that world fails miserably.
And Phil is still out to lunch on governments not owning the roads we drive on.
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
8:56 am
“the “conservative” position is really quite simple – if you are too poor to buy health insurance, then you you are better off dead. that way, you’re no longer a drag on society. only the strong — and strong = rich — survive. ironically, the one tenant of Darwinian theory they do believe in.”
Show, how else would you libs provide us with the food we need to eat? Die quicker, would you, please?
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
9:01 am
“However, those who defend our one of kind private distribution of health care need to look at the performance and cost of out system. It is simply not performing very well and it cost allot.”
Moderate, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
You cannot compare this nation to almost any other in statistical analysis, as we are markedly different from almost every other.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
9:45 am
Michael H. Smith @August 12th, 2011 10:44 pM.
When you fail in arguments, you resort to insults. Typical
killerj
August 13th, 2011
11:21 am
This is not a decision the government should make period,our forefathers are rolling in their graves,tea party anyone?,never,NEVER will I abide.Go Tea Party.
Mary Sue
August 13th, 2011
12:19 pm
Dusty,
Are you a fool, or just flat out ignorant. Maybe you just made a mistake when you read my blog posting. I make no mention of Canada. I pay steeply for my own health care insurance: $750 a month, for the first year and $653 a month, the second year, I am way more than paying the freight of my current health care insurance cost. But insurance is just that, it provides a hedge against losses for a premium price, if anyone should become seriously ill.
Others should know that it is very difficult (if not flat out impossible) to get private insurance in the State of Georgia once someone approaches retirement age (50+). If you have been denied coverage, go to PCIP.gov to see if you are eligible to buy your health care insurance directly from the US government. It is a stop-gap measure until 2014, when health care pools go into effect.
Yay, Dusty, we all know you want everyone to lose all they have, hurry up to shrivel up and die, or move to Canada or Cuba, if they don’t agree with you. Try to have a nice day!
Allen Walters
August 13th, 2011
12:28 pm
What a wonderful story…Dentists volunteering to help the community in hard times, and helping other Americans!
Maybe the lawyers, plumbers, electricians, handymen, roofers, and others…could also help us help each other.
Maybe the AJC could help with their voice, in reaching out to the community.
(sorry about straying from your current topic)
BGibbons
August 13th, 2011
1:00 pm
30 million uninsured my fat hairy Obama! Let’s dig in and determine who chooses not to get insurance. The already inflated number is padded by 20-somethings who would rather buy booze and clothes because they are bullet-proof. Stop stealing my money. My people have waited 100 years to get the full paychecks we worked to earn. Please get a job and start pulling your weight. Healthcare and home ownership may be a dream, but they are not a right. You really do appreciate it more when you earn it. Like the man said, If you feel like working hard all day, then step in my shoes and take my pay.
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
August 13th, 2011
1:05 pm
Judge Vinson, as you have already noted, has already shot down the whole thing. Case closed. We need to get the government out of health care, period. Look at what they have done to it.
Moderate Line
August 13th, 2011
2:15 pm
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
9:01 am
“However, those who defend our one of kind private distribution of health care need to look at the performance and cost of out system. It is simply not performing very well and it cost allot.”
Moderate, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
You cannot compare this nation to almost any other in statistical analysis, as we are markedly different from almost every other.
+++
So Ted Williams did not hit .400.
The use of cliches doesn’t prove the statistic right or wrong.
Whether we are markedly different or not our health care system does not perform very well.
Do you have any evidence that our system is performing well?
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/healthcare/slideshow/interactive.asp
independent thinker
August 13th, 2011
3:37 pm
If we are going to go to a market driven healthcare system then repeal EMTALA passed by Reagan and have everyone responsible for paying when they go to an emergency room, No more socialist progtams of the insured paying for the unisured – boot the uninsured out and let them rot- then let the insurers write any exclusions they want and pay healthy profits to their shareholders- Isn’t that the system you prefer Kyle ??????????- I am sure your employer makes sure you will be covered so why worry about the undeserving others???They just need to be weaned off the welfare teat.
independent thinker
August 13th, 2011
3:39 pm
By the way that wonderful market driven system with all its waste of capital deserves to be no. 35 in the Worl Health Survey you despise.
NiceDawgDeaux
August 13th, 2011
3:45 pm
MarkV and others:
If we follow your reasoning then all banks should HAVE to loan money even if you have a terrible repayment record (bad credit is a preexisiting condition). Insurance companies insure UNKNOWN risks, not known risks. Also, why should someone take their money to pay for someone elses insurance or medical bills, when their own family members aren’t willing to do that and it is their family. This type of thing goes on when an older member ‘needs” to go on medicaid etc., when the children have the ability to cover their expenses, but instead shift it over to the “Public”, because they will not accept that responsiblity. Michael W. has you pegged, snap out of it and get into the real world! I don’t want to pay for your or your families bills, and you shouldn’t be able to use the government to take my money with force to have you use it.
S. Berg
August 13th, 2011
3:50 pm
Esperenza: Auto insurance is not required by federal law, and is only required by state law if you choose to own a car. There is no choice under Obamacare.
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
4:15 pm
“Whether we are markedly different or not our health care system does not perform very well.
Do you have any evidence that our system is performing well?”
Yeah, Moderate. I can see it all around me. I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet.
I can see people getting MRI’s, CT scans, transplants, joint replacements and some of the best prescriptions in the world within days, not weeks, months or in some cases, never.
I can see people that on their worst days are living better than 95% of the rest of the planet.
So you can take your phony, contrived statistics and shove them where the sun don’t shine, Moderate, and open your narrow-minded eyes to the reality of what actually goes on this country, rather than relying on some insipid talking points from people who don’t like us very much.
Steve - USA
August 13th, 2011
5:03 pm
Where do I sign up for the waiver Obama has given his friends?
sircharles19
August 13th, 2011
6:23 pm
Everyone who make comments is right; so, we are now going to take up monies to fund for hospitilization for those who don’t have or can’t purchase some insurance for medically insurance. Just like we are doing now, when people die, they need hand-outs to pay for their funerals. I understand everyone opinions and I am well with it all. However, we all should want to have some types of medical insurance; the burden is if one don’t have it; behind the lines of others and life threating procedures often that person life hands in the balance. All we need to remember is, health care is a billion dollar industry, and if you don’t have it; chances are your medical needs no matter how serious they are; your chart don’t have to be pick up by any medical physician(s). With some insurance, you have a fighting chance. All doctors will add compounded service charges; then the specialist who are specialized in different field of medical work; you bill sky-rocket and you are left to pay for it. With insurance, you do have the abilities to have treatments that you are not paying for on a compounded basis. Lives are not safe because you have no insurance; they are saved because you have it. I would say that we all need some small medical insurance and funeral insurance. Other than that, nothing is free, if you don’t have any of the above, you stand to lose! Get some type of medical and funeral insurance; its better than nothing!
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
7:38 pm
NiceDawgDeaux @3:45 pm
I wish I knew what you were talking about. It does not seem to have anything to do with what I was arguing about.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
7:49 pm
Dave R. @4:15 pm: ” I can see it all around me. I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet.”
US in the 34th place in life expectancy of the UN member nations, behind many countries with the universal health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_CIA_World_Factbook_.282011_estimates.29
Those darned phony, contrived statistics of the CIA!
Dave R.
August 13th, 2011
8:53 pm
“US in the 34th place in life expectancy of the UN member nations, behind many countries with the universal health care.”
MarkV, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
The “life expectancy” number always being rotted out by mindless libs who rely in statistics without explanation is a phony as a three dollar bill.
Our number the WHO uses is penalized by murders, auto accidents, excessive drinking and fast food eating habits that kill us sooner than many other countries do. These earlier deaths are NOT a result of a failed or lesser health care system, but a by product of having more freedoms to encounter these behaviors than in other countries. Yet the WHO does not take them into consideration when creating their “life expectancy” statistic.
Keep trying, MarkV.
sich neu verlieben
August 13th, 2011
9:11 pm
Driver Against,money best transfer capital but call investigation warn activity discussion award memory adult partner strong notion relation tone difficulty hard therefore lay refer academic though warn down drop star package end channel herself save determine student accident die entirely expense colour easy keep funny morning field steal path search improvement anybody off would gas result concerned finding vote upon drink marriage care anything distance investment commitment security youth of wear exercise religion title category method world fairly gas wing that fresh works actually sufficient
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
9:22 pm
Dave R. @8:53 pm:
As I said, those darned phony, contrived statistics of the CIA. Fortunaterly,we always have people like you who can figure out ways how to deny what they say.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
9:35 pm
Dave R. @4:15 pm: ” I can see it all around me. I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet.”
Dave R. @8:53 pm: “Our number the WHO uses is penalized by murders, auto accidents, excessive drinking and fast food eating habits that kill us sooner than many other countries do.”
Dusty
August 13th, 2011
9:55 pm
Mark V,
Would you tell me something? Why do you know every statistic that runs down our country? Then believe everyone of them even when there is information to discredit some of them
Perhaps you are a Democrat who approves of everything Obama does, right or wrong. Maybe you NEED free healthcare and think the government should furnish it. Why? Where does it say that government shall take care of you like a baby until you die? It isn’t there.
This country has furnished you freedom and sees that you get it. I would say that we are one of the safest (and probably the healthiest) despite all your statistics. I suggest that you read up on Somalia, Sudan and a few others where it is a blessing just to live one day to the next. A little appreciation for your own good fortune would do you a world of good.
krp
August 13th, 2011
10:48 pm
Here’s a scenario: A tire company has a weekend sale and as part of the promotion, they give away doughnut. The following week, some liberal is driving down the street and has a flat tire, and so they pull into the parking lot of a doughnut shop and ask that the cashier go out and fix the flat.
The cashier says, “This is a doughnut shop. We sell doughnuts.”
The liberal replies, “Yes, I know, tire shop had doughnuts last weekend, so you must be able to fix my flat tire.”
That is how this whole argument is like. Liberals have no idea what insurance is and that what insurance companies do.
Warren Buffett is the nation’s leading investor. He is the chairman of Berkshire-Hathaway. What business is Bershire Hathaway? Is it classified as “insurance”, It owns GEICO and other things but it is essentially a holding company of stocks. That is what an insurance company is: a holding company. An insurance company takes a monthly premium and then invests it. The idea is that over time the premiums are bundled together and appreciate to the point that in the case of a medical need, there is sufficient capital for paying for the services.
This is the case for any insurance, whether it is health, disability, home owner, accident, auto, fire, whatever. Insurance companies are INVESTMENT COMPANIES. The policies that they underwrite and the coverage that they give is the business model which they use to get people to agree to provide them with capital to invest. Liberals seem to think that insurance companies are in the medical business because they see insurance companies pay medical bills, since like they would think that a bakery is in the tire business because they once saw doughnuts in a tire shop. They think that insurance are a ponzi scheme, where they pay fifty cents and have the right to stick the insurance company with a 2 million dollar bill.
Insurance companies are about mitigating risk, they are not about health care, but about mitigating the FINANCIAL RISK of medical care. If there is a pre-existing condition, there is not risk involved, it is an absolute certainty. Insurance companies have no business covering pre-existing conditions.
And the same with auto insurance, the policy provides coverage. State laws mandate that if you drive a car, you mitigate the risk by having a certain amount of coverage, say 300,000. But if you are in a accident where there is a 6 car pile up,. the damages could exceed 300,000 easily. The insurance company would pay 300,000 and that would be all they would be obligated to pay. and any additional amounts would not be covered.
The states only mandate coverage to a certain point, and only to mitigate risk. If you have a car to drive, then there is no risk, and so there is nothing to mitigate.
As far as life expectancy, don’t forget about the kids that die young in the gang wars in the middle of the projects. And the fact that we have men and women that die in the military that are stationed in other countries that do not pay for their own national defense. Or the crack babies that are born to junkie mothers and the ones that starve because their mothers are spending their welfare checks on crystal meth instead of food. Those numbers work themselves into the average which liberals blame on the lack of universal health care.
Songbird
August 13th, 2011
10:57 pm
Krp, Warren Buffett is a Democrat.
MarkV
August 13th, 2011
11:13 pm
Dusty @9:55 pm
I would answer your questions if they mader any sense.
“Why do you know every statistic that runs down our country?” Does that even starts making a sense? How do you know what statistic I know? What is a statistic that “runs down our country?”
“Then believe everyone of them even when there is information to discredit some of them.”
Apart from the bad grammar, who “has the information” to discredit the official statistic? How do you know that it is true?
“Perhaps you are a Democrat …” “Maybe you NEED free healthcare …”
Perhaps. May be .. Lets acknowledge the fact – you do not know any of that.
“Where does it say that government shall take care of you like a baby until you die?” Where did I argue that?
“I suggest that you read up on Somalia, Sudan and a few others …” Is that your yardstick for a comparison?
Steve
August 13th, 2011
11:29 pm
Why is America in decline? Ignorance, racism , a lousy education system. Just read the thread here and it’s clear. We are f*%^&ing clueless. Bah by, world power.
krp
August 13th, 2011
11:41 pm
Uh. I am aware that Warren Buffett is a Democrat. That doesn’t negate anything that I said.
krp
August 13th, 2011
11:49 pm
The SUPER rich are always Democrat. They pay their tribute to the Clintons and the Obamas, and the union thugs, and they endorse Democrats and then the liberal media leaves them alone. Tne Super Rich support higher taxes. They SAY they support higher taxes on the rich, but they really mean is that they support higher taxes on the high income people. There is NO tax on wealth, only on income.and activities. They support, if not DEMAND higher taxes on INCOME, because they do not want “those people” that earn their income to become part of the super rich class that they are in.
THE RICH PEOPLE already have their wealth, which they have invested in tax-free munis so they don’t care about raising income taxes because they have little, if any, taxable income, and what taxes they do pay is just a small price to keep “those other people” from becoming rich
Dave R.
August 14th, 2011
1:03 am
MarkV, never try to take two disparate statements and use them for comparative analysis.
You’re not qualified.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
August 14th, 2011
8:11 am
krp: Insurance companies are about mitigating risk, they are not about health care, but about mitigating the FINANCIAL RISK of medical care.
———————————-
The country is full of idiots, most of whom vote Democrat, who think health insurance is some sort of magic piggy bank that converts dimes into an unlimited supply of crisp twenty-dollar bills.
independent thinker
August 14th, 2011
8:19 am
Does anyone have a right to unlimited health care? If the answer is yes- then provide universal health care like medicaid, peach care etc for those who cannot afford it.
If the answer is no then turn anyone away when they get to a hospital emergency room and no insurance or ability to pay. It is just a simple business decision.
Do not give the uninsured unlimited tests and hospital care and have them waive all rights to sue. Simple sol;utions for simple minds.
GT
August 14th, 2011
9:19 am
The worst disaster to hit the country in 200 years is the Wall Street crisis of the Bush administration and he bailed it out. That action will domino for decades as we now look down the barrel of lower credit rating. We took the shot as a nation for what should have been a private market matter and we are now paying dearly for it as fat cats on the street immediately started receiving unimaginable bonuses. Bush slipped out of Washington like a politician that had just pardoned Hitler and all we worry about is something we are paying for already.
Are there people, outside New Orleans, dying on our streets of disease or natural causes? They are shipped off to public facilities. The two million prisoners locked up in America get excellent medical attention in most cases. This is once again a case of fairness. When the rich do not pay taxes the middle class that do pay for these indigents and prisoners, getting the short end of the stick. With all buying and paying for insurance it becomes a financial burden for all of us, not just the tax payers. That burden actually goes down because the mass buying of health care. We are not supporting a Wall Street scam artist back by a corrupt rating agency, like the last administration was willing to do. This is a cost already being picked up, it is real, it does not come and go like a Republican war machine, it needs to be dealt with by adults.
If you want to drag someone to court the states should be dragging Wall Street bailouts, but their fingerprints are all over that one. It is a lot like these wars we have supported for decades back by the Republicans, when it is all over what did we get for our money and lives. We are trading partners with a communist Viet Nam, boy we show them who was boss.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
9:47 am
Dave R. @1:03 am: And what qualifies you to give advice? When you cannot come up with a real argument, you resort to personal insults, which is typical.
Dave R.
August 14th, 2011
9:59 am
MarkV, your lack of understanding of what comprises a real argument does not constitute a failure on my part.
You have been given multiple chances to debate an actual issue. You dodge them every time. After a while, your juvenile behavior becomes boring and I revert to insults because you apparently understand nothing else.
Now, if you WANT to debate substantial points within the confines of the topic (which I doubt you do), debate. If you want to come on here and spout hyperbolic slogans and nonsense, do so. But don’t expect any respect for that tactic if you do.
J Reb
August 14th, 2011
10:48 am
Esperenza is dead wrong. Mandatory medical insurance is no way related to auto insurance. You don’t drive a car you don’t have to have auto insurance. Idiot.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
10:59 am
Dave R. @9:59 am:
The only one of the two of us who fails the arguments and resorts to insults is you.
These are the facts:
When you made the statement to Moderate that “I can see that (still, despite the freedoms removed) the freest country in the world can have people shot, get into car accidents, eat the unhealthiest food on the planet and drink to excess and yet still out live the majority of the rest of the planet,” I pointed out that the US is well below in life expectancy to many other countries with universal health systems.
To which you replied that “Our number the WHO uses is penalized by murders, auto accidents, excessive drinking and fast food eating habits that kill us sooner than many other countries do.” Clearly you were dishonest. In the first statement, you argued that IN SPITE of people getting shot, getting into car accidents and eating the unhealthiest food on the planet and drinking to excess people can still outlive people in other countries. But when challenged on that point, you argued against the statistics on the ground that those factors are include.
One could easily point out further fallacies in your arguments. The number of murders in the US is about 0.7% of the deaths per year, the number of car accident fatalities about 1.6%, hardly significant in overall life expectancy. Many countries with higher life expectancies have much higher alcohol consumption than the US. Only in the overweight category US is in front of most developed nations. But the point of my discussion was the dishonest way you made your arguments.
Dave R.
August 14th, 2011
11:09 am
“But the point of my discussion was the dishonest way you made your arguments.”
No, the point of your “discussion” was that you fail to understand the argument.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
11:24 am
Dave R. @11:09 am: Your agument was clear. When you were challenged, you resorted to falsehoods and insults.
Bud Wiser
August 14th, 2011
12:08 pm
Tman
August 12th, 2011
6:26 pm
Sorry Mark V @6:19. Not following you. I may be dense.
No Tman, you are not dense. The comment was ignorant, expressly off subject, and totally irrational.
That is the way of the uber left; when they cannot respond to questions or take information from fact (facts confuse them, after all), they simply resort to one of three very predictable responses:
1. They call the other side racist (1st response usually);
2. They resort to simplistic name calling, simplistic because that is the best their tiny intellects can muster;
3. They obfuscate or try to change the subject matter, as in comparing apples to oranges, or “medicare is being financially strapped, all Republicans want to do is starve the poor and let old people die”, you know, that kind of strategery.
Bottom line, you cannot reason with idiots.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
12:40 pm
Bud Wiser @12:08 pm: “Bottom line, you cannot reason with idiots.”
You are right in this, therefore I would not reason with you.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
1:04 pm
Tman @6:26 pm: I have sent you the following reply to your question:
MarkV @August 12th, 2011 @6:33 pm
“Tman @6:26 pm:
The fallacy of your car insurance argument is that it tries to show the car insurance payment as a fee for owning or driving a car. It is not, it is a compulsory insurance in case of an accident, to make sure that the damage is paid. Thus the equivalent of driving a car is living. The purpose of the health insurance is to make sure that the medical bills are paid. Unless you want to commit suicide you do not have a choice to live without a danger of accident or injury.”
Perhaps you can make a judgment whether I
1. They call you racist (1st response usually);
2. Resorted to simplistic name calling, simplistic because that is the best their tiny intellects can muster;
3. Obfuscated or tried to change the subject matter, as in comparing apples to oranges, or “medicare is being financially strapped, all Republicans want to do is starve the poor and let old people die”, you know, that kind of strategery.
Thank you.
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
1:05 pm
It should have been: 1. Called you racist. Sorry
independent thinker
August 14th, 2011
1:21 pm
According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated. When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[12] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year
However, because of the recent influence of managed care and other cost control initiatives by insurance companies, hospitals are less able to shift costs, and end up writing off more in uncompensated care. The amount of uncompensated care delivered by nonfederal community hospitals grew from $6.1 billion in 1983 to $40.7 billion in 2004, according to a 2004 report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,[11] but it is unclear what percentage of this was emergency care and therefore attributable to EMTALA.
Financial pressures on hospitals in the 20 years since EMTALA’s passage have caused them to consolidate and close facilities, contributing to emergency room overcrowding. According to the Institute of Medicine, between 1993 and 2003, emergency room visits in the U.S. grew by 26 percent, while in the same period, the number of emergency departments declined by 425.
Anybody know which president passed ENTALA- a pure socialist program??
From Wikipedia
MarkV
August 14th, 2011
2:09 pm
Ronald Reagan?
Songbird
August 14th, 2011
2:36 pm
Independent thinker, this is exactly why people should be required to have health insurance or they should have to pay out of pocket for their care. If you’re very rich, you probably can afford to pay for your own medical care, even a catastrophic event, but most can’t afford to do that without insurance.
For the very young, a catastrophic policy is probably enough. Most people should have more preventative care to stay healthly and hopefully prevent the horrible and preventable illnesses that plague this country. Health care costs would be lower if Americans took better care of their health. Also, a lot of unnecessary tests and treatments are done because they generate revenue for doctors and hospitals and, in some cases, are because of lawsuits.
Marxv
August 14th, 2011
2:58 pm
Anybody know which president passed EN(?)TALA- a pure socialist program??
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act everybody knows is purely an emergency aid program.
Got another lie to tell or false claim to make?
MarxV
August 14th, 2011
2:59 pm
Enter your comments here
MarxV
August 14th, 2011
3:01 pm
Socialism today, tomorrow and forever!
Dave
August 14th, 2011
5:43 pm
“All of which is why Republicans in Congress should continue pushing to repeal the entire law and replace it with market-oriented reforms, rather than counting on the courts to set things right.” And even after next year’s elections, that is going to happen? And “market-oriented reforms?” Like the stock market, banking, the world economic collapse, the current health industry? To quote a great pundit and lousy states-person, “how’s that working out for you?”
independent thinker
August 14th, 2011
9:39 pm
MarxV – when you force a private entity to give medical treatment with no provision for compensation “until the patient is stabilized” which in some case can be years and other people who can pay or have insurance cover the free care – that is soicialism. EMTALA is pure unadulterated socialism.
Kyle Wingfield
August 14th, 2011
10:23 pm
independent thinker @ 9:57: No full cut and paste jobs allowed here. Please provide a link and a one- or two-paragraph excerpt. Thanks.
clem
August 15th, 2011
9:12 am
hope td read buffet today…i rest my case
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
9:23 am
MarkV – Then, to take your argument one step further, we should also provide free food and housing for every man, woman and child in the United State.
No Sympathy
August 15th, 2011
9:23 am
Why can’t I just take care of my self? If I get sick, I’ll pay a doctor his fee to diagnose me and decide what to do to get me better. Someone tell me why this doesn’t work.
Junior Samples
August 15th, 2011
9:40 am
All drops in the bucket compared to what we spend on war, unbudgeted.
If we want to wage so war badly, who wouldn’t support a tax to fund it. Bullets and bombs aren’t cheap. So who could possibly argue against that?
We could also provide insurance to other countries so we won’t wage war on them. Of course if they break the terms of agreement, then bombs away…
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
9:43 am
Karl Childers @9:23 am:
And how did arrive at this conclusion?
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
10:01 am
MarkV – I’ll assume you meant to type “And how did you arrive at this conclusion.” My point is simply this – where does one draw the line?
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
10:17 am
Karl Childers @10:01 am
Sorry about my typing error.
I am not sure why you would want to extend the reasoning to things like housing and food. In my arguments, I made a comparison between operating a vehicle, which may result in accidents causing unforeseen damages (including injuries) that will require payment, and just living, where again one cannot foresee illnesses or injuries, which would have to be paid. Without insurance, if the parties were unable to pay, the charges would have to be absorbed by others. There is nothing unforeseen about the needs for housing and food that would be comparable.
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
10:55 am
No one has a “right” to medical care other than the “patient-dumping” protections included in EMTALA. I’m not sure what you mean when you write, “… just living, where again one cannot foresee illnesses or injuries, which would have to be paid.” How exactly does one “pay” an injury?
To my prior point – if we are providing for payment of health care expenses, why not also include food and housing expenses since by “just living” we will all eventually have to pay for nutrition and shelter.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
11:10 am
Karl Childers @10:55 am
I am not sure if you are intentionally dense, and whether you really want to argue rationally.
I never wrote that anybody has a “right” to medical care. What I wrote is that no civilized society will let people be sick or die from illnesses or injuries on the basis of not being able to pay for the treatment. This, incidentally, is already in the laws of this country.
“I’m not sure what you mean when you write, “… just living, where again one cannot foresee illnesses or injuries, which would have to be paid.” How exactly does one “pay” an injury?”
Is it such an intellectual effort to understand that I meant that when one is treated for illnesses or injuries, someone has to pay for the treatment?
“To my prior point – if we are providing for payment of health care expenses, why not also include food and housing expenses since by “just living” we will all eventually have to pay for nutrition and shelter.”
I already answered this question – are you paying attention? “There is nothing unforeseen about the needs for housing and food that would be comparable.” Nobody can foresee what illnesses and injuries he/she may suffer, and how much they will cost. That cannot be said about nutrition and shelter.
Curious
August 15th, 2011
11:11 am
MarkV, what do you do all day? There are way too many of your comments on here.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
11:18 am
Curious @11:11 am: And what business or interest of yours is that?
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
11:48 am
MarkV – I’ll indulge your comment on my being “intentionally dense” as the undisciplined tantrum of a childish, liberal, name-caller.
I own a home. I have purchased a property insurance policy on my home. This policy covers me in case of “unforseen” calamities involving my home. How can I put this so you’ll comprehend it … just think of it as health insurance on my house.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
12:09 pm
Karl Childers @11:48 am:
I made the “intentionally dense” comment because I already had answered your question. I will take your reaction to that as an undisciplined tantrum of a childish conservative. As for the “name caller,” perhaps you can enlighten me about what names I called you.
As for a comparison with home insurance – again, I have to repeat the basic argument. First, every insurance is about unforeseen events (even life insurance involves a foreseen event, but happening unexpectedly). That is the difference, as I wrote before, from food and shelter, by shelter meaning support of housing, which is what you started with. But the difference between health insurance and property insurance policy on the home is that if you have a damage of the house, even a complete loss, you will still be alive and hopefully healthy. You will not die because of that. The cost of the house also is a foreseeable expense, unlike medical expenses, where you do not know what treatment might be required.
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
12:45 pm
MarkV – And to mitigate the risk of “unforseen” damage to my home I purchase an insurance policy. At first, my mortgage lender requires it, then when the house is paid for I do it as a matter of personal risk management. At the point that I own the home, I may also choose to forego any insurance and pay any damages from my own pocket (self insurance).
Ultimately, I choose to buy the house, I choose whether or not to buy insurance (once it belongs to me), and I choose all other risk aversion mechanisms (smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, etc.). That said, I would not expect you or anyone else to pay for damages to my home just as I would not expect you or anyone to pay for the removal of my gall bladder. Incidentally, my mortality, in either case, is a moot point.
Also, please explain exactly what is “already in the laws of this country” that I must be provided with health care, over and above the rather narrow definition within EMTALA?
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
1:13 pm
Karl Childers @12:45 pm
I do not find anything to disagree with in the first part of your answer. Where I diverge is as follows:
You are free to buy or not to buy the house insurance. The society has no significant, legitimate interest in what will happen if you do not. If you do not and suffer damage, even a complete loss, that is your loss. You may be without a house if you cannot buy or rebuild, but so are many other people. Nobody needs to make any contribution, and nobody will be forced to make a contribution.
In case of vehicle insurance, the society has a legitimate interest in safeguarding people who suffer damage if you have an accident and are unable to pay. Therefore, all states have some compulsory vehicle insurance laws. In case of health care, the society has a legitimate interest that if you get sick or injured and cannot pay, the cost of your treatment will not be carried by other people.
You may not expect anyone to pay for the removal of your gall bladder. But what you expect is hardly the point. If people have no health insurance, and they get seriously sick or injured, what is the society to do? If you answer is let them be sick or die, then that will be the end of this debate. As for EMTALA, I do not know what you mean by “rather narrow definition.” The following is one description of EMTALA:
“It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.”
Unless you pay no attention to what is going on, you should know that people who seek treatment even for non-emergency situations and have no health insurance overwhelm emergency rooms.
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
1:59 pm
MarkV – You just made my point. EMTALA also states what a patient is not entitled to. If a patient is not having an emergency, then the hospital emergency room does not have to treat that patient. The hospital most likely will direct the patient to his/her own doctor or to a less-intensive-care setting, such as a community health clinic. The hospital is only required to provide what’s known as “stabilizing care” for a patient with an emergency medical condition.
I expect individuals who get sick or injured to seek treatment and, if they do seek treatment, to pay for that treatment, either by obtaining an insurance policy (including Medicare), paying for the service in cash or credit card or working out a payment plan with their healthcare provider.
Incidentally, I also carry liability insurance for my home (as well as property) which would cover me in the event that one of my guests slipped and broke his hip or impaled himself on my pitchfork. So, society (as defined by my houseguests and neighbors) actually does have a “significant, legitimate interest in what will happen if I do not buy house insurance.”
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
3:49 pm
Karl Childers @1:59 pm:
Your answer regarding EMTALA is simply divorced from reality. Don’t you know anything about the actual situation in the emergency rooms?
As for your point about your liability insurance, I can only charitably assume you have included it just to lighten up the debate without contributing anything pertinent.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
4:28 pm
“As increasing numbers of the unemployed and uninsured turn to the nation’s emergency rooms as a medical last resort, doctors warn that the centers — many already overburdened — could have even more trouble handling the heart attacks, broken bones and other traumas that define their core mission.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09emergency.html?pagewanted=all
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
4:37 pm
MarkV – According to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, an emergency medical condition means: (A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in: placing the health of the individual (or with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy; serious impairment to bodily functions or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or (B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions: that there is inadequate time to make a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
We may have an interpretation problem of a law that’s already on the books.
Obamacare is unconstitutional and should be repealed. The individual mandate is as ridiculous as mandating that everyone must drive a Chevrolet.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
6:09 pm
Karl Childers @4:37 pm: I would have a greater respect for your views had you not included that ridiculous last sentence. As for the constitutionality of Obamacare, I pay not attention to the views of the visitors on this or any other blog. Unless you are a judge in a very high position or a constitutional scholar, what makes you think you can make that judgment?
Karl Childers
August 15th, 2011
6:52 pm
As I asked hours ago, MarkV – where does it end? If the government forces us to buy health insurance then what’s to stop them from forcing us to buy “starvation insurance” or “shelter insurance?” What’s to stop them from forcing us to purchase American-made automobiles? I don’t seek your respect, I’ve merely exposed the fallacy of your argument. As for the constitutionality of Obamacare, as of today, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me. Stay tuned.
MarkV
August 15th, 2011
10:33 pm
Karl Childers @6:52:
Apparently you have a great power of self-deception if you believe that you “exposed the fallacy” of my arguments.
As for the constitutionality of the health care law, aren’t you forgetting the opinion of the 6th District US Court of Appeals?
Karl Childers
August 16th, 2011
8:36 am
MarkV – That decision will prove to be an anomaly and you still haven’t made a case for forcing a couple hundred million people to purchase a particular product.
Karl Childers
August 16th, 2011
10:59 am
Game, set, match.
MarkV
August 16th, 2011
12:38 pm
Karl: So now you are a clairvoyant, who knows how the courts will decide. I always wonder about the arrogance of people like you, who are sure they know better than, in this case, half of the judges of the appellate courts that have made the decision so far.
Enough is enough. In the beginning I thought we might debate rationally the issues. I was wrong. I answered patiently all your questions with reasoned arguments, while you kept babbling incoherently about “starvation insurance” and “shelter insurance,” as if I had not addressed those issues.
Then you veered even further into Neverland by claiming that mandatory health insurance may lead to forced buying of American-made automobiles. Not only have I addressed the uniqueness of the health issue, but compulsory health insurance has been a feature of health care systems in many developed countries for many years, and nowhere it has led to compulsory buying of commercial products or starvation insurance, even though I am sure you would call many of those countries less free than the US.
I do not know if you are incapable of understanding rational arguments, or if your ideology prevents you from doing so, and I no longer care. In the end you have resorted to the tactics of coward and liars by claiming that you “exposed the fallacy” of my arguments, when you have never done anything approaching that. I am sure you would continue in this way, for which I have only contempt. You may write as much as you want or nothing at all, and I could not care less, because I will no longer access this thread.
Good-bye.
Karl Childers
August 16th, 2011
1:41 pm
MarkV – Don’t take my word for it. Read the decision from the 11th Circuit Court. The court found for a group of twenty-six (26) states. Among other things, the court wrote,
“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power.”
The majority also wrote,
“Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle.”
The court also wrote that the individual mandate in Obamacare is “breathtaking in its expansive scope.”
MarkV – I must know ask that you cease putting your head on my chopping block. If this were a video game I would be holding your decapitated head high above my own while simultaneously raising my intellectual sword to the heavens with my other hand. Good-bye and good luck.
Karl Childers
August 17th, 2011
8:37 am
That’s all she wrote.
Moderate
August 17th, 2011
5:36 pm
“The fallacy of your car insurance argument is that it tries to show the car insurance payment as a fee for owning or driving a car. It is not, it is a compulsory insurance in case of an accident, to make sure that the damage is paid. Thus the equivalent of driving a car is living. The purpose of the health insurance is to make sure that the medical bills are paid. Unless you want to commit suicide you do not have a choice to live without a danger of accident or injury.”
Flawed logic. Only liability insurance is required. This assures that, if you cause harm to SOMEONE ELSE, they will be protected in some manner. This is a state requirement for using public roads along with licensure and registration. You are free to drive in any form or fashion on your own property. If we took the advice above and removed the requirement to do anything free other than trauma care at a hospital without insurance, there would be a great change.