From a doctor's perspective, is it better to repeal or keep healthcare reform

[Kevin Baker]

I've been reading up on this idea of a medical loss ratio and it being capped at 80 or 85% under the ACA. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, insurance companies must spend 80-85% of revenue on providing care. Any excess must be returned to consumers.

I'm not necessarily opposed to universal healthcare but my take on this is there is a negative incentive for insurance companies to decrease costs as they're always going to carefully manage their expenses to stay at this 80% junction and any money invested to more efficiently provide care (less cost to consumer) is literally disincentivized as it leads to less revenue, hence less of a pie to take that 80% from.

Am I missing something? This seems like a huge issue with the ACA.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted103644]

I've been reading up on this idea of a medical loss ratio and it being capped at 80 or 85% under the ACA. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, insurance companies must spend 80-85% of revenue on providing care. Any excess must be returned to consumers.

I'm not necessarily opposed to universal healthcare but my take on this is there is a negative incentive for insurance companies to decrease costs as they're always going to carefully manage their expenses to stay at this 80% junction and any money invested to more efficiently provide care (less cost to consumer) is literally disincentivized as it leads to less revenue, hence less of a pie to take that 80% from.

Am I missing something? This seems like a huge issue with the ACA.

Yeah, you are missing something.

If an insurance company could increase total revenue unilaterally, you would be right.

That total revenue value comes from their total number of subscribers and does not increase if they have to reimburse more care (which is why they would ideally reimburse nothing).

So yes, they need to meet the 80% or 85% requirement, but they probably receive much more than that in claims.

So insurance companies are a brake on healthcare costs, even with efficiency requirements.

Your argument does apply to the fee for service model for physicians and hospitals though...

 

[SpecterGT260]

Well, then he's an idiot, but I still think you went too far arguing against him (an easy temptation. I'll admit).

That's also debatable
If you think I should have just dropped it... that's a personal call. If you think my points were invalid id like you to show me where. I think the major misunderstanding between you and I stems from you skimming, because I can go back and quote myself a dozen times saying exactly what you were trying to convince me of a fee posts back

 

[SpecterGT260]

So if I'm hearing this right, it is in the insurance company's interest to keep costs high bc then they get to take their 15-20% out of a bigger pie?

Edit: Crap... it's too early.. that's exactly what you said...

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yeah, you are missing something.

If an insurance company could increase total revenue unilaterally, you would be right.

That total revenue value comes from their total number of subscribers and does not increase if they have to reimburse more care (which is why they would ideally reimburse nothing).

So yes, they need to meet the 80% or 85% requirement, but they probably receive much more than that in claims.

So insurance companies are a brake on healthcare costs, even with efficiency requirements.

Your argument does apply to the fee for service model for physicians and hospitals though...

Can you define "brake" as you use it here and expand on your last point? It might just be too early for me right now lol. I dont feel like there is a negative incentive for hospitals or physicians. It seems to me that controlling costs would close the gap between bill outs and reimbursements.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Just because it seemed to be a lot of contention on the subject, you really can't argue that the Constitution argues in favor or against healthcare, because it simply isn't in there. The concept of healthcare as an organization or a "right" didn't exist when the document was written so can can't infer a pro-con argument from it. In order for it to be a "right" it would have to be explicitly spelled out in a amendment, just like the right for women to vote and the right for people to be free from slavery (which of course are just moral common sense, but it took acts of Congress and/or a war to make them "rights")

 

[lightfire22000]

I also believe we agree that you do not have the right to harm others. yes?

Yes.

Here is where you go wrong.... The right to "attempt protection" is NOT the same as "the right to force someone to protect you". The scenarios you describe, ALL OF THEM, are the latter, not the former.

Except with healthcare, one does not have the right to attempt protection specifically because experts, historically doctors and now often nurses and PAs, have been deemed to be a far more effective means of protection. This implies a unique responsibility on the part of medical professionals.

Calling free healthcare a right means exactly what I just said: you have the right to force someone else to restore your well-being to whatever ideal you deem necessary. I phrase it like that for an important reason. What IS healthy? (God... I hate waxing philosophical like that... but seriously it was unavoidable).

You focus on viruses (which is funny because they are often untreated even in those with stellar insurance) but what about an old dude with bad knees? they "ail" him he is not as "healthy" as you or I, so do we owe him those knees? Disease and deterioration is a natural and normal part of life. This definition alone is insufficient to support claim to a right to healthcare.

I was thinking of anti-retrovirals such as atazanavir and ritonavir.

You even seem to mix and match your arguments jumping on both sides of the fence where it seems to fit.... remember, per your own ramblings, the gov cannot take from you WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. If the gov is taking from me in the situation you pose above, how much u wanna bet there is a law backing it

Yes, there are laws backing the government taking property. That is why it's perfectly constitutional for the government to take healthcare services.

You have the right to your life and whatever you wish to do with it unless expressly forbidden by law. This in no way translates into saying that you have the right to force other people to provide these things for you.

If the law were to say that physicians had to treat regardless of patient's ability to pay, then our services would be taken away WITH due process.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Just because it seemed to be a lot of contention on the subject, you really can't argue that the Constitution argues in favor or against healthcare, because it simply isn't in there. The concept of healthcare as an organization or a "right" didn't exist when the document was written so can can't infer a pro-con argument from it. In order for it to be a "right" it would have to be explicitly spelled out in a amendment, just like the right for women to vote and the right for people to be free from slavery (which of course are just moral common sense, but it took acts of Congress and/or a war to make them "rights")

EXACTLY! that is all I am saying.


firefly.... you need to slow down and actually read. You arent even in the same ballpark anymore.

Yes.



Except with healthcare, one does not have the right to attempt protection specifically because experts, historically doctors and now often nurses and PAs, have been deemed to be a far more effective means of protection. This implies a unique responsibility on the part of medical professionals.

Here you go again... you neglect an incredibly important fact. Not having a doctor provide the service for you does NOTHING to your ability to attempt. I can attempt to fly if I wish. Not having the optimum equipment does not make what I do no longer an attempt. You seem to suggest that without access to a personal MRI machine everyone with the sniffles is doomed to accept their fate.

Either be more careful with your language or look up the words you are using.... because your points are not making sense.... again, we have agreed upon the right to "attempt protection" or whatever you want to call it.... Nowhere at all does the ability to attempt hinge upon a doctor or anyone else doing anything for you. Now.... if you mean the right to attempt via modern medical techniques and practices via a trained specialist.... well... you should have said that (and if that is the case you are still wrong because that removes it from your argument all together)

.



I was thinking of anti-retrovirals such as atazanavir and ritonavir.


Yes, there are laws backing the government taking property. That is why it's perfectly constitutional for the government to take healthcare services.



If the law were to say that physicians had to treat regardless of patient's ability to pay, then our services would be taken away WITH due process.

ugh.... I know SDN has language rules but there is no better way to say this...

No **** Sherlock.

That is exactly what I have been saying. Even within your argument (i.e. even humoring some of the nonsense you are spouting) the argument falls apart. I never claimed it was unconstitutional for the government to take healthcare. ever.... never ever. I am literally speechless that you even proposed this argument.... (luckily this doesnt affect finger movements). For the umpteenth time, all i said is that your argument stating "free healthcare is expressly stated in the constitution" is borderline insane. thats all.

your last point is even worse.... did you even see my post to johnny? hell, your response to what you quoted doesnt even address what I said....

johnny go back and read.... I have NOT said at any poitn that healthcare CANNOT be comped. My only point for the last several posts is that this guy's rationale for why free healthcare is a right is completely off base. Healthcare is not a right, and just because we have some laws that provide healthcare in specific situations does not make it a right according to his argument. If free healthcare was a RIGHT in the literal sense of the word NOBODY would have to pay, but you only get out of paying if you have no other option. moral of the story, the 5th amendment does not guarantee the right to free healthcare.

I am not saying anything is denied physicians... Again... im just saying that this guy's logic turns in on itself. Thats all. I dont believe physicians are denied due process. The laws are all there and all in place. that IS due process. But according to our constitutional scholar up there, if such healthcare was a right we wouldnt need such laws in the first place. In (IMO) a more coherent fashion than his previous interpretations, the existence of those laws shows physician skill to be an owned commodity i.e. "property". if it wasnt we wouldnt need the laws to begin with would we? (and once again, this need not be applied to the thread as a whole or taken as my opinion on healthcare... jsut an argument meant to show limelight why his logic is.... interesting, and his zealous conviction... concerning )

I dont even think you are on your OWN side of the argument any more... you are now repeating things ive been telling you in order to combat the idea that free healthcare has a constitutional basis. Pick a side and stick to it.... you have contradicted yourself about a dozen times by applying the same rules oppositely to different groups.

Im done arguing this with you because based on a few other responses it is pretty clear that any lurkers or other readers are up to speed on your nonsense. So from here on out I will be responding to your posts in a direct parallel fashion to the last quote you had up there. This should be fun also $20 says that with your inability to read, even spelling it out for you like this will still not keep you from being thoroughly confused and convinced im the crazy one here in about 6 posts.

 

[deleted103644]

Can you define "brake" as you use it here and expand on your last point? It might just be too early for me right now lol. I dont feel like there is a negative incentive for hospitals or physicians. It seems to me that controlling costs would close the gap between bill outs and reimbursements.

Think about it.

Insurance companies have a relatively fixed revenue stream that an only be increased by increasing the number of subscribers (or increasing rates, which might lose subscribers and to my understanding cannot be punitive like with car insurance - eg no increase for people who get sick).

Every reimbursement then comes out of that relatively fixed revenue stream. It is in an insurance company's best interest to deny as many claims as possible --> acting as a brake on medical spending, since that money cuts directly into their profits. The 80% cutoff just limits how much they can do that.

The ideal situation for an insurance company would be to insure only healthy people who never used healthcare (ie free money for them).

 

[SpecterGT260]

Think about it.

Insurance companies have a relatively fixed revenue stream that an only be increased by increasing the number of subscribers (or increasing rates, which might lose subscribers and to my understanding cannot be punitive like with car insurance - eg no increase for people who get sick).

Every reimbursement then comes out of that relatively fixed revenue stream. It is in an insurance company's best interest to deny as many claims as possible --> acting as a brake on medical spending, since that money cuts directly into their profits. The 80% cutoff just limits how much they can do that.

The ideal situation for an insurance company would be to insure only healthy people who never used healthcare (ie free money for them).

so you're saying, ideally, they would pay out 0 and just return80% at the end of the year, thus ensuring their full 20% (or 85/15 whatever). Yeah, that makes sense. Do you think this has an actual impact on health costs, though? claim denial happens after the fact and in my experience it is not usually considered when a patient is deciding whether or not to be seen.

 

[deleted103644]

so you're saying, ideally, they would pay out 0 and just return80% at the end of the year, thus ensuring their full 20% (or 85/15 whatever). Yeah, that makes sense. Do you think this has an actual impact on health costs, though? claim denial happens after the fact and in my experience it is not usually considered when a patient is deciding whether or not to be seen.

Claim denial makes physicians wary of performing certain procedures for patients with certain insurance companies.

Also, while I completely agree that insurance companies don't want to spend a dime over 80%, I don't think they would want to pay out nothing and give 80% back. They need their customers to at least think they are providing healthcare coverage, otherwise they will lose both sick and healthy subscribers (they only want to lose sick aka unprofitable subscribers).

 

[SpecterGT260]

well... yeah..

so maybe i should have said "theoretically" instead of "ideally". Either way, they are interested in denying claims in an effort to retain as much of their 20% as possible.

 

[deleted103644]

well... yeah..

so maybe i should have said "theoretically" instead of "ideally". Either way, they are interested in denying claims in an effort to retain as much of their 20% as possible.

Absolutely. And the "brake" is more on the physicians than the patients, although patients will find they need to look longer for a physician to perform a procedure if their insurance company reimburses it poorly/rejects claims frequently. Many will eventually give up looking.

 

[SpecterGT260]

so..... BLAME THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!

 

[deleted103644]

so..... BLAME THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!

Haha, in a word, yes.

 

[lightfire22000]

EXACTLY! that is all I am saying.


Here you go again... you neglect an incredibly important fact. Not having a doctor provide the service for you does NOTHING to your ability to attempt. ...

True, but other laws impede one's ability to attempt. You cannot legally attempt to fly without a pilot's license, as far as I know.

Either be more careful with your language or look up the words you are using.... because your points are not making sense.... again, we have agreed upon the right to "attempt protection" or whatever you want to call it.... Nowhere at all does the ability to attempt hinge upon a doctor or anyone else doing anything for you.

The ability to legally attempt hinges on having a medical doctor or licensed practitioner to prescribe the medicine usually.

 

[drfamilymed]

 

[SpecterGT260]

True, but other laws impede one's ability to attempt. You cannot legally attempt to fly without a pilot's license, as far as I know.



The ability to legally attempt hinges on having a medical doctor or licensed practitioner to prescribe the medicine usually.

no it does not. trying an herbal remedy is still an attempt. Jumping off a roof and flapping my arms is still an attempt!
BOOM. headshot
But on to my prior promise... I mean.. have YOU ever tried to shave a banana? the outer skin is just too tough for any of those multiple razor deals... So... of course this means that your argument is invalid

 

[Valadi]

If the law were to say that physicians had to treat regardless of patient's ability to pay, then our services would be taken away WITH due process.

I think forcing someone to work for no pay is called slavery.

Lightfire I'm interested by your arguments because they range from liberal (encouraging government mandates on healthcare reform) to anarchistic (removing barriers designed for public protection).

We don't need metaphors to argue this issue and invariably they dilute the points.

Medical licensing and pharma regulations on pharma exist to protect people and prevent profiting from snake-oil shams. If anything, I think current regulations - especially in biotech - are too relaxed.

Encouraging public participation in healthcare is laudable, but offering them "tools of the trade" without training is dangerous.

As a final interjection, our body is not property, it is a person. Congress also deems it so when it ruled that we could not sell our body parts willy-nilly. Furthermore, there are economic and moral differences between selling products and services. Physicians provide the latter.

And yes, I agree that insurance companies are bloated scum. PPACA would have been better served further cracking down on them than earmarking federal dollars for new district hospitals. In addition, better biotech regulations would keep them from selling overpriced hogwash to hospitals and would drive reimbursements down, allowing better insurance payouts and more affordable access.

 

[boggvir]

Just because it seemed to be a lot of contention on the subject, you really can't argue that the Constitution argues in favor or against healthcare, because it simply isn't in there. The concept of healthcare as an organization or a "right" didn't exist when the document was written so can can't infer a pro-con argument from it. In order for it to be a "right" it would have to be explicitly spelled out in a amendment, just like the right for women to vote and the right for people to be free from slavery (which of course are just moral common sense, but it took acts of Congress and/or a war to make them "rights")

The constitution is not meant to, and is not, a compendium of all the rights that citizens have. It just keeps the government from infringing on specific ones. It was designed with the question of what rights a tyrant might want to take away, and making sure he could not do so.

Every citizen has the right to lobby the government to recognize other rights that they feel are fundamental.

 

[lightfire22000]

no it does not. trying an herbal remedy is still an attempt. Jumping off a roof and flapping my arms is still an attempt!
BOOM. headshot
But on to my prior promise... I mean.. have YOU ever tried to shave a banana? the outer skin is just too tough for any of those multiple razor deals... So... of course this means that your argument is invalid

No, if you don't sincerely think a method can work, the employing the method is not an attempt. The physician occupies a unique place in society in that he/she/s allowed to prescribe medicines that a person cannot otherwise get. In a truly free-market, these barriers to purchasing medicine wouldn't be there. This makes certain parts of healthcare a right for people because other free market rights have been denied.

I'm not arguing that the second amendment guarantees free guns. I'm arguing that the absence of the second amendment would guarantee free police force.

 

[lightfire22000]

I think forcing someone to work for no pay is called slavery.

Lightfire I'm interested by your arguments because they range from liberal (encouraging government mandates on healthcare reform) to anarchistic (removing barriers designed for public protection).

We don't need metaphors to argue this issue and invariably they dilute the points.

Medical licensing and pharma regulations on pharma exist to protect people and prevent profiting from snake-oil shams. If anything, I think current regulations - especially in biotech - are too relaxed.

Encouraging public participation in healthcare is laudable, but offering them "tools of the trade" without training is dangerous.

I concur, millions of people, especially infants, would die if this were adopted. New strains of VRE and MRSA would devastate the population periodically and everyone's quality of life would drop. This is why I favor both strong regulations and universal coverage. We already pay a lot more for healthcare in America than places with universal coverage so there's a net gain to be had.

As a final interjection, our body is not property, it is a person. Congress also deems it so when it ruled that we could not sell our body parts willy-nilly. Furthermore, there are economic and moral differences between selling products and services. Physicians provide the latter.

People sell sperm, eggs, blood, and volunteer for clinical trials. In reality, we can sell our body parts, just not legally.

 

[SpecterGT260]

No, if you don't sincerely think a method can work, the employing the method is not an attempt. The physician occupies a unique place in society in that he/she/s allowed to prescribe medicines that a person cannot otherwise get. In a truly free-market, these barriers to purchasing medicine wouldn't be there. This makes certain parts of healthcare a right for people because other free market rights have been denied.

I'm not arguing that the second amendment guarantees free guns. I'm arguing that the absence of the second amendment would guarantee free police force.

I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

 

[Valadi]

I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Jonny Cochran defense. Lol

 

[NickNaylor]

Who says that having a right to something makes it free?

I don't see defenders of the 2nd amendment demanding free guns.

I don't see defenders of abortion demanding free abortions (for those who can afford it).

I don't personally care if healthcare is a right, it's not important because whether it is or not we should have basic universal healthcare with supplemental private insurance.

The second amendment guarantees you a RIGHT to bear arms. It doesn't guarantee your ABILITY to bear arms.

How do you guarantee healthcare if it's not going to be free and people are unable to afford it (or if the insurance company refuses to reimburse)?

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

 

[strongboy2005]

I'm not arguing that the second amendment guarantees free guns. I'm arguing that the absence of the second amendment would guarantee free police force.

What a bizarre statement.

The only way you are going to get "free" labor is slavery. If the second amendment weren't there, we would simply have one fewer right. The absence of my right to a massage does not mean we must have massage therapy slaves. You cannot have a right to someone else's labor without tyranny.

 

[SpecterGT260]

The second amendment guarantees you a RIGHT to bear arms. It doesn't guarantee your ABILITY to bear arms.

How do you guarantee healthcare if it's not going to be free and people are unable to afford it (or if the insurance company refuses to reimburse)?

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

exactly. now if we apply this phrasing to the 200 times I said that having a "right" to something doesnt mean you have the right to force someone else to provide it for you.....

 

[Lysinee]

.Insider poll: Legal experts now expect Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate.

."A new insider survey of 58 legal experts conducted after the oral arguments concluded found that most predict that the court will strike down the so-called individual mandate, a central provision within the law requiring that every American purchase a government-approved form of health insurance.".

.http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/insider-poll-legal-experts-now-expect-supreme-court-123441478.html.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

My feeling about this is "meh"

While it is unfortunate if the individual mandate is struck down (simply because you can't really fund the many of the provisions in the rest of the act without it), you can't make people get behind something they don't understand nor really care about. The average american has no clue about how healthcare is funded, how the system currently works (or doesn't), really anything about it outside their own health needs (or lack thereof) and political rhetoric. Most people aren't impacted by the benefits of healthcare of the poor, people with pre-existing conditions, etc. They only see healthcare as it exists in their immediate vicinity. However, since funding of healthcare and affordability of healthcare are on a downward trend, people will be forced to deal with all the issues that the ACA attempts to address (though it does so incompletely) whether they like it or not at some point in the future. But American people never really are interested in looking ahead when they have other issues to deal with in the present. Americans prefer to blame retroactively then be pro-active. So to that, I say "meh".

 

[startoverat40]

here is what I hope will happen:

strike down individual mandate, but keep all the rest > health insurance becomes unprofitable > death of private insurance industry > single payer

 

[deleted103644]

here is what I hope will happen:

strike down individual mandate, but keep all the rest > health insurance becomes unprofitable > death of private insurance industry > single payer

Amen.

 

[Dave89]

here is what I hope will happen:

strike down individual mandate, but keep all the rest > health insurance becomes unprofitable > death of private insurance industry > single payer

single payer >>>>>>>>> quality of US healthcare goes way south, and all the good doctors flee to New Zealand, or even Canada

 

[startoverat40]

single payer >>>>>>>>> quality of US healthcare goes way south,

Myth.

 

[deleted103644]

single payer >>>>>>>>> quality of US healthcare goes way south, and all the good doctors flee to New Zealand, or even Canada

So they're fleeing single payer.... By going to a country with single payer?

Pass the pipe please.

 

[Dave89]

So they're fleeing single payer.... By going to a country with single payer?

Pass the pipe please.

They're beautiful countries. And if you have to pick between one single-payer and another - hey, NZ has great vistas.

 

[lightfire22000]

What a bizarre statement.

The only way you are going to get "free" labor is slavery. If the second amendment weren't there, we would simply have one fewer right. The absence of my right to a massage does not mean we must have massage therapy slaves. You cannot have a right to someone else's labor without tyranny.

No, if the second amendment did not exist and the courts didn't recognize a right to bear arms, we would not have ANY right to protect ourselves from an attacker as the police have no obligation to protect us. This basically would take away the right to life since the government would practically be forcing people to give up their lives to attackers. Rights are often inextricably intertwined: when one right is taken away, many others often fall with it.

The free labor could be a condition to maintain medical licensure; the legal profession already has this policy. No one is obligated to enter a particular profession. A massage ban doesn't affect your right to life, although it would affect other rights. Not being legally allowed to buy medicine does jeopardize the right to life when buying the medicine could be life saving. Drivers' license laws don't apply in emergencies! All or most healthcare license laws do apply in emergencies and possible emergencies so without the guaranteed emergency room service(Reagan Care), poor people would essentially be banned from obtaining medical treatment.

Jury duty, public school community service requirements, conscription, filling out tax returns or hiring one to perform this service, and compulsory pro-bono legal service have all been held as constitutional.



Also, the ninth amendment makes it clear that the Bill of Rights just clarifies some of the rights a person has. It was never intended to enumerate all of the rights a person has.

 

[lightfire22000]

The second amendment guarantees you a RIGHT to bear arms. It doesn't guarantee your ABILITY to bear arms.

How do you guarantee healthcare if it's not going to be free and people are unable to afford it (or if the insurance company refuses to reimburse)?

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

In general as a broad rule, the second amendment guarantees a right to bear certain defensive arms within your ability. So if you were unable to operate a firearm, you'd have a right to operate another weapon such as a crossbow. You could not ban crossbows and allow rifles for defensive purposes(recreational hunting is completely different) if it would discriminate against people who couldn't operate rifles.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Every time I read your interpretation of this amendment all I can think is "six degrees to Kevin Bacon".....

Can you fond even a single instance where anyone in congress has proposed such an over extended interpretation of that amendment?

P.s. the amendment does not guarantee protection by police. It guarantees protection FROM police.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Actually, the 2nd amendment really protects organized citizens (ie a militia) to carry arms to challenge foreign armies or dangers to the state when a standing army does not exist. You can extrapolate and interpret it all you want, police protection, individual self-defense.... none of that is in there (unless someone personally wants it to be to fulfill their agenda).

Same holds true for most of the amendments. If it's not explicitly stated, the framers didn't necessarily mean it to be true as a "right". But then there wouldn't be unnecessary political arguments and where's the fun in that?

 

[Lysinee]

The decision will be made public on or before June 28th.

Do you think it will be announced early or near the end?

 

[SpecterGT260]

Actually, the 2nd amendment really protects organized citizens (ie a militia) to carry arms to challenge foreign armies or dangers to the state when a standing army does not exist. You can extrapolate and interpret it all you want, police protection, individual self-defense.... none of that is in there (unless someone personally wants it to be to fulfill their agenda).

Same holds true for most of the amendments. If it's not explicitly stated, the framers didn't necessarily mean it to be true as a "right". But then there wouldn't be unnecessary political arguments and where's the fun in that?

You're right, I got confused between his new argument and his previous one about the 5th...

 

[lightfire22000]

Actually, the 2nd amendment really protects organized citizens (ie a militia) to carry arms to challenge foreign armies or dangers to the state when a standing army does not exist. You can extrapolate and interpret it all you want, police protection, individual self-defense.... none of that is in there (unless someone personally wants it to be to fulfill their agenda).

Same holds true for most of the amendments. If it's not explicitly stated, the framers didn't necessarily mean it to be true as a "right". But then there wouldn't be unnecessary political arguments and where's the fun in that?

The courts have held that it protects an individuals right to bear arms and for practical purposes, the courts' interpretations are the only ones that matter.

Originally, it protected the rights of states and private citizens to form militia when a standing army DID exist. We know this because the right to bear arms comes from the English Bill of Rights when it was drafted after their king James II tried to force everyone in the country to be Catholic and essentially subjugate its parliament; he was attempting a coup. Basically, it protects the right to form a militia to fight a standing army if there is a coup attempt.

 

[lightfire22000]

The decision will be made public on or before June 28th.

Do you think it will be announced early or near the end?

I think it will definitely be announced near the end. I'm think the court will strike down the individual mandate because Anthony Kennedy, the moderate, wants to help Romney win the election.

 

[scarshapedstar]

I think it will definitely be announced near the end. I'm think the court will strike down the individual mandate because Anthony Kennedy, the moderate, wants to help Romney win the election.

I think they will strike it down because the Roberts court has done the Chamber of Commerce's bidding 100% of the time this year. (Google it!)

Why end their streak?

 

[Lysinee]

"The Supreme Court will release Thursday all of its remaining rulings, including one on the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health care law, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears reports."

June 28.

 

[Marcus Brody]

 

[JABWS]

"The Supreme Court will release Thursday all of its remaining rulings, including one on the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health care law, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears reports."

June 28.

Damn. I was hoping to make a meaningful contribution to this thread, but you beat me to the punch.

Admittedly, I haven't read through all of the preceding 700+ posts, so forgive me if I'm restating a question that has already been addressed, but I'm interested to hear opinions on the political fallout associated with the ruling on Thursday. Can the President survive an unfavorable ruling with regard to the individual mandate? How will Romney approach the upcoming election if the law is upheld, thereby validating a central achievement of Obama's first term?

 

[IMDoc607]

so you're saying, ideally, they would pay out 0 and just return80% at the end of the year, thus ensuring their full 20% (or 85/15 whatever). Yeah, that makes sense. Do you think this has an actual impact on health costs, though? claim denial happens after the fact and in my experience it is not usually considered when a patient is deciding whether or not to be seen.

Are you one of those people that find an argument in everything? All the posts I read from you are those in which you are arguing. Your classmates and residents must loveeee you.

I had an intern like you in the unit. What an annoying and frustrating 4 weeks that was.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Are you one of those people that find an argument in everything? All the posts I read from you are those in which you are arguing. Your classmates and residents must loveeee you.

I had an intern like you in the unit. What an annoying and frustrating 4 weeks that was.

That was an interesting choice of post to quote to emphasize your point

These threads are all discussions. Argument is just one flavor of discussion. If we all came here and just spouted off "true to me" opinions and then made nicey nice to all view points we gain nothing. I'm not exactly here for the social exposure and camaraderie

Keep in mind that in the context of this thread, demonizing being "argumentative" is paramount to supporting the notion that the 5th and 2nd amendments guarantee the right to healthcare

 

[IMDoc607]

That was an interesting choice of post to quote to emphasize your point

These threads are all discussions. Argument is just one flavor of discussion. If we all came here and just spouted off "true to me" opinions and then made nicey nice to all view points we gain nothing. I'm not exactly here for the social exposure and camaraderie

Keep in mind that in the context of this thread, demonizing being "argumentative" is paramount to supporting the notion that the 5th and 2nd amendments guarantee the right to healthcare

I stopped reading all these posts so I quoted any random one. The bad memories are returning....I feel like I'm back in the unit with the intern. My month went like this...

Intern: "I think we should more lasix"
Me: The SBP is 70 so the answer is no
Intern: But I think we should give more lasix (followed by a 3 minute diatribe about why)
Me: No

And she continued to F'in argue!!!!

And she did this with everyone. Your posts remind me of that month but you definitely seem much brighter lol