Healthcare Bill

[Cleavername]

Im not misinterpreting it. Yea they get paid, but if they can earn a profit they get paid more for producing more. The problem is the government is ******ed, they made it so you couldnt buy insurance across state lines, meaning big insurance companies could monopolize the areas and effectively do whatever they want, because there was no free market economics to keep them in line OR intelligent government regulation.

People know its being siphoned out, but the people who make the laws are part of the business world where the being is being relocated to.

Theres very little healthcare reform in this bill. Insurance reform needed to happen, but none of the other major areas of healthcare were reformed. All this bill does is set up a system for insurance companies to incrementally fail.

don't you just love Obama and his plan to save our country .

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Auriga]

Im not misinterpreting it. Yea they get paid, but if they can earn a profit they get paid more for producing more.

Producing more? You mean denying more claims, and keeping more $ in the company, finding technicalities and even creating oversights not to have to pay something.

There is an entire TEAM of people at my hospital whose jobs are to fight denied Insurance claims and refile them and file appeals. I work next to them in the business office. You should read some of their denials...it's ridiculous.

People know its being siphoned out, but the people who make the laws are part of the business world where the [$] is being relocated to.

You are absolutely right on this, politicians with per$onal intere$ts behind their agendas litter the legislative process, where attempts to change for the greater good of the public get tangled. I still want to believe there are those out there with a genuine sense of social justice, but...

 

[JaggerPlate]

The future ...

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=717545


Yes, we CAN!! Yes, we CAN!!!

 

[7starmantis]

The future ...

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=717545


Yes, we CAN!! Yes, we CAN!!!

thats truly frightening. I mean, not to those going into medicine for real reasons, but us greedy folk who want to provide for our families.

 

[Dr Oops]

I'm not sure I buy that at all. Assuming that the requirements for healthy people purchasing insurance holds, the companies should do fine. Sure, they very well may have to raise prices, but they've got a captive audience. They should do fine.

That's the genius of the bill. The penalties are less tHan premiums. It makes more sense to not have insuance then when I have a big illness or accident jump on an insurance plan run up some nice bills and then get and go bak to just paying the penalty. Great for me but the insurance company eventually can't keep up and becomes insolvent; but unlike Medicare they can't just get money fro
somewhere else or go into more debt. The only option them becomes agoverment run healthcare. It's already happening.

 

[Dr Oops]

Producing more? You mean denying more claims, and keeping more $ in the company, finding technicalities and even creating oversights not to have to pay something.

There is an entire TEAM of people at my hospital whose jobs are to fight denied Insurance claims and refile them and file appeals. I work next to them in the business office. You should read some of their denials...it's ridiculous.

You are absolutely right on this, politicians with per$onal intere$ts behind their agendas litter the legislative process, where attempts to change for the greater good of the public get tangled. I still want to believe there are those out there with a genuine sense of social justice, but...

If insurance companies had Competition they would have incentitves to lower premiums and offer mire coverage and services. BUT it's against the LAW for u to get insurance fr another state which may have a
better company/plan. As a result
insurance companies have monopolies in their states and can do wutever they want. Since the government didn't make intelligent laws like having people who pay their premiums regularly dropped
illegal insurance companies do it becuz they can.

 

[Technorino]

Im just wondering, what will the average salary look like in a few years?

 

[jboz]

Im just wondering, what will the average salary look like in a few years?

Do you believe in fortune tellers?

 

[JaggerPlate]

Do you believe in fortune tellers?

Give me your palm ...

Ahh, yes if I follow your life-line I can see th ... LOWER. Oh that's what your future salary says ... LOWER.

 

[bluv1212]

UnlonelyRoad I'm also starting to feel that the insurance mandate may be shot down.

I'm not a legal expert, but I find the argument that the government cannot force it's citizens to by a private commodity rather compelling.



Car insurance is mandated for the most part. By not having it, you risk penalties in the event that you get into an accident, or if you're pulled over.


Just saying, It might work.

BTW I really like this thread. Good job, guys. We Have some really objectivity despite those strong convictions.

 

[bluv1212]

Any Doctors or residents up in here?

Is there any consensus in the medical community on healthcare reform, or is it just as disparate as the rest of the country?

I'd like the perspective of anyone with some established interests as opposed to those of you, who like me, are medical school prospects.

 

[7starmantis]

Car insurance is mandated for the most part. By not having it, you risk penalties in the event that you get into an accident, or if you're pulled over.

This example is just too different to really work. First auto insurance is a state issue, not a federal government issue. Second you dont have to buy insurance if you dont drive. You still have to buy health insurance even if you dont use it. Auto insurance is only "mandated" for liability (protect the other person in an accident) we aren't buying insurance for someone we hurt or make sick. The list goes on.

Legally this is something thats never been done in the US. The questions and tests of it are to be expected.

 

[bluv1212]

This example is just too different to really work. First auto insurance is a state issue, not a federal government issue. Second you dont have to buy insurance if you dont drive. You still have to buy health insurance even if you dont use it. Auto insurance is only "mandated" for liability (protect the other person in an accident) we aren't buying insurance for someone we hurt or make sick. The list goes on.

Legally this is something thats never been done in the US. The questions and tests of it are to be expected.

No doubt that the two are very different. But, the question poses, "can the government force citizens to buy a private commodity?" And I think it's very clear that the answer is yes. Is the car insurance situation completely analogous, no. I could argue that they aren't completely different either. But, both of these are irrelevant to the question i responded to.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

This example is just too different to really work. First auto insurance is a state issue, not a federal government issue. Second you dont have to buy insurance if you dont drive. You still have to buy health insurance even if you dont use it. Auto insurance is only "mandated" for liability (protect the other person in an accident) we aren't buying insurance for someone we hurt or make sick. The list goes on.

Legally this is something thats never been done in the US. The questions and tests of it are to be expected.

I'd make a point that for most of us, not having a car is simply not an option. The government might as well be forcing me to buy insurance.

However, there is a difference between the state mandating and the federal government mandating, which I think explains the legal reasoning behind the challenges.

Additionally, one of the things that was pointed out to me, is that the "mandate" could instead be defined as a "tax" on people who don't buy insurance. The government can tax whatever it feels like, so if you define the mandate in that regard, it seems more likely to survive a challenge.

"We're not forcing you to buy insurance, we're simply adding a tax. People who purchase insurance get out of the tax, the same way that people who donate to charity can get deductions."

 

[bluv1212]

I would say that is a very practical application you've got there.

 

[7starmantis]

No doubt that the two are very different. But, the question poses, "can the government force citizens to buy a private commodity?" And I think it's very clear that the answer is yes. Is the car insurance situation completely analogous, no. I could argue that they aren't completely different either. But, both of these are irrelevant to the question i responded to.

No, your still combining state and federal government issues. They are very different, most people dont realize or understand the huge difference, but legally this is still unprecedented. Also, "the government" (state in this case) is not forcing people to buy a private commodity, you can chose not to buy auto insurance and not break the law or get fined. While this may seem irrelevant semantics practically, its very important in a legal (constitutional) sense.

I dont know what you were responding to, just pointing out a point about your statement.

I'd make a point that for most of us, not having a car is simply not an option. The government might as well be forcing me to buy insurance.

Not an option practically isn't the same as not an option legally. What seems practically the same is so very different legally and opens a huge can of worms constitutionally.

Additionally, one of the things that was pointed out to me, is that the "mandate" could instead be defined as a "tax" on people who don't buy insurance. The government can tax whatever it feels like, so if you define the mandate in that regard, it seems more likely to survive a challenge.

"We're not forcing you to buy insurance, we're simply adding a tax. People who purchase insurance get out of the tax, the same way that people who donate to charity can get deductions."

There are still some huge legal hurdles to overcome even with this "interpretation". The problem is the wording that was passed in the bill, anything else is irrelevant at this point. Your still only addressing the "fine" if you dont buy, your missing the federal force thats causing you to spend money on the insurance itself. Regardless of the people who do not buy in, your still being forced to spend money simply for existing. Thats the big issue. In your example even those who "get out of the tax" are still being forced to buy insurance. Your missing the mandate and only explaining the fine. Those who donate charity aren't being forced to donate. See the separation?

 

[bluv1212]

I understand that legally it's unprecedented, and that there are distinctions between state and federal governments.

I am merely saying that there are existing practices in which government can pressure citizens to buy a private commodity. Fact.
By saying "government," I realize there is some ambiguity, I am using it to mean state, federal, or both. I am drawing a likeness, one that i know is imperfect but still valid. I understand that people elect to buy insurance in order to drive a car, which is why I am not arguing how it's done. I am merely saying that it is done.

Unlonelyroad made a comment that he did not forsee the government being able to make people buy a private commodity. I merely wanted to add, that there is an existing institution in which people are forced to do so (in order to drive). You are arguing something different all together - precedence on a federal level vs. a state level. And I completely agree, there hasn't been any precedence for this on a federal level - You're stating something that is blatantly known.

No one said that it there were restrictions to this debate, that we were barring state policies from the definition of government. The necessity of car insurance is prevalent throughout the US, one that is managed individually by each state, yet is established in the majority of them. Is it so hard to fathom that some of the practices used to pressure automobile operators into buying car insurance would be similarly applicable to implementation of health reform? It is definitely possible that some of the methodology can be used here.

Sorry about the redundance, but i want to make sure you know what I'm trying to get across - that there is an existing, functioning model and maybe it's somewhat applicable. So, can the government pressure it's citizens to buy a private commodity? yes, they are doing so already. You can either not drive, drive with their regulations, or drive while being subject to penalties and liability. Is that much of a choice?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

There are still some huge legal hurdles to overcome even with this "interpretation". The problem is the wording that was passed in the bill, anything else is irrelevant at this point. Your still only addressing the "fine" if you dont buy, your missing the federal force thats causing you to spend money on the insurance itself. Regardless of the people who do not buy in, your still being forced to spend money simply for existing. Thats the big issue. In your example even those who "get out of the tax" are still being forced to buy insurance. Your missing the mandate and only explaining the fine. Those who donate charity aren't being forced to donate. See the separation?

Well first off, the bill has different language then what I'm proposing, so this is moot, beyond theory. I would not be surprised however, that if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional (which I believe could happen), if something like this become sort of a work-around.

Basically, the government introduces a general tax that applies to everyone. That part is totally legal. Now, they introduce a tax break that you get if you purchase health insurance. Also, totally legal. Now you've got the power of the mandate, with out the actual mandate.

I don't have to donate to charity any more then anyone has to purchase health insurance. But if I don't donate to charity, I don't get the deductions. If I choose not to buy health insurance, I also wouldn't get the deductions.

I suspect the reason it was not phrased this way, even if it is much simpler constitutionally, is because the Democrats wanted to avoid including the word "tax" as much as possible.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Not an option practically isn't the same as not an option legally. What seems practically the same is so very different legally and opens a huge can of worms constitutionally.

Personally, I think people should be able to opt out of the mandate. Everyone is covered for free until you are 21. Then, you're not forced to buy health insurance, but if you choose not to, private insurance companies gain the right to deny you service.

I'd also expand this to say, you don't have to pay taxes towards Medicare or Medicaid if you decide you want to opt out of all public health care services and pay for it yourself. Just, no going back on your word.

The problem is, if we decide as a society that we're going to offer health care to stupid people who get in over their heads, you have to have a mandate. We can either not cover the folks who opt out, ever, or we can force them into the system. Least that's what I think. Feel free to blast it.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Not an option practically isn't the same as not an option legally. What seems practically the same is so very different legally and opens a huge can of worms constitutionally.

True, but like the car example, the government could just change the requirement to something that you "can" opt out of, but that nobody would.

For instance, what if they said, "Anyone who owns or rents a place to live or is a dependent of such a person is required to get health insurance."

Technically, I don't have to get health insurance, but in reality, I pretty much have to.

 

[7starmantis]

So, can the government pressure it's citizens to buy a private commodity? yes, they are doing so already. You can either not drive, drive with their regulations, or drive while being subject to penalties and liability. Is that much of a choice?

Your missing the point. Your conflating laws to mandates. You might as well say since the government forces people to purchase fishing licenses then a model exists for forcing people to buy health insurance. There is a huge difference between requiring citizens to be responsible for engaging in an activity and forcing citizens to purchase private goods for simply being alive. Your trying to support a legal argument from a laypersons point of "practicality". The legal issue is simply very different. On a point I would say requiring auto insurance is pushing the envelope itself, but the constitution really has no bearing on state issues like this.

The practicality of the "choices" isn't the problem, that can be solved simply with more choices, the authority to do this is the question. The auto insurance simply doesn't hold water to a federal case like this. They (federal government) is not "doing so already" and as a matter of fact neither is the state government. Your trying to define "government" as all levels and then saying the precedents are there. Thats just a misunderstanding of the levels of government. They are separate, a precedent in state government has no bearing on federal government. You must define the term for any meaningful discussion on it.

Well first off, the bill has different language then what I'm proposing, so this is moot, beyond theory. I would not be surprised however, that if the mandate is struck down as unconstitutional (which I believe could happen), if something like this become sort of a work-around.

I would agree with you but it would have to go through another vote process. That isn't something anyone really wants to do right now.

Basically, the government introduces a general tax that applies to everyone. That part is totally legal. Now, they introduce a tax break that you get if you purchase health insurance. Also, totally legal. Now you've got the power of the mandate, with out the actual mandate.

Well you run into the same problem this mandate has. People will simply pay the "tax" and then when they get chronic expensive illness they will switch to the insurance and run up the bill. I doubt anyone would vote for making people define a lifelong decision about their health (and legally holding them to it) when they are 21 years of age.

I don't have to donate to charity any more then anyone has to purchase health insurance. But if I don't donate to charity, I don't get the deductions. If I choose not to buy health insurance, I also wouldn't get the deductions.

See above, the problem of supporting and paying for the insurance with people switching in and out as they see fit.

I suspect the reason it was not phrased this way, even if it is much simpler constitutionally, is because the Democrats wanted to avoid including the word "tax" as much as possible.

I would argue it is in fact not simpler constitutionally.

Personally, I think people should be able to opt out of the mandate. Everyone is covered for free until you are 21. Then, you're not forced to buy health insurance, but if you choose not to, private insurance companies gain the right to deny you service.

I'd also expand this to say, you don't have to pay taxes towards Medicare or Medicaid if you decide you want to opt out of all public health care services and pay for it yourself. Just, no going back on your word.

See above, making a lifelong legal decision at 21 isn't something most would support, certainly not me and certainly not politicians who need to get elected.

The problem is, if we decide as a society that we're going to offer health care to stupid people who get in over their heads, you have to have a mandate. We can either not cover the folks who opt out, ever, or we can force them into the system. Least that's what I think. Feel free to blast it.

Thats exactly the point, your contradicting your own points about "opting out" of the mandate. Your absolutely right, the current bill rests on the mandate. Without it, its crap (well more crap than it is now).

True, but like the car example, the government could just change the requirement to something that you "can" opt out of, but that nobody would.

For instance, what if they said, "Anyone who owns or rents a place to live or is a dependent of such a person is required to get health insurance."

Technically, I don't have to get health insurance, but in reality, I pretty much have to.

Your really reaching outside the arm of the law here, this is not something that could be laid out legally by any means.

 

[bluv1212]

Your missing the point. Your conflating laws to mandates. You might as well say since the government forces people to purchase fishing licenses then a model exists for forcing people to buy health insurance. There is a huge difference between requiring citizens to be responsible for engaging in an activity and forcing citizens to purchase private goods for simply being alive. Your trying to support a legal argument from a laypersons point of "practicality". The legal issue is simply very different. On a point I would say requiring auto insurance is pushing the envelope itself, but the constitution really has no bearing on state issues like this.

The practicality of the "choices" isn't the problem, that can be solved simply with more choices, the authority to do this is the question. The auto insurance simply doesn't hold water to a federal case like this. They (federal government) is not "doing so already" and as a matter of fact neither is the state government. Your trying to define "government" as all levels and then saying the precedents are there. Thats just a misunderstanding of the levels of government. They are separate, a precedent in state government has no bearing on federal government. You must define the term for any meaningful discussion on it.

Whoa!

the government is pressuring people to buy a private commodity in order to be alive? That's an exaggeration.

You're trivializing my argument with the fishing license thing, and that's really not appreciated. And you're arguing within the confines of your own definition of government. I could cited a practice from Ancient Athenian government, and to me, It may still have some validity. I didn't say that it was a perfect model, simply that it could be somewhat applicable. I didn't even say how it could be applicable. I merely said that it's a case in which our government, on any level, exerts pressure to buy a private commodity. If you can't agree with that much, you're letting your biases cloud your perception of a pretty general statement there. And I won't try to convince you otherwise because you really don't leave room for objectivity, and i really don't have any energy to waste on one statement any longer.

And your line about the layman's point of practicality - Are you an expert on the matter? did legislature enlist you to construct a plausible application or something? What qualifies you to belittle every little admission here? And if you are so expertly qualified, why not spend your time offering practical applications for this bill rather than doggedly shooting down everyone else's speculation? Better yet, if your not the lay man, what are you doing in this forum?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

Well you run into the same problem this mandate has. People will simply pay the "tax" and then when they get chronic expensive illness they will switch to the insurance and run up the bill. I doubt anyone would vote for making people define a lifelong decision about their health (and legally holding them to it) when they are 21 years of age.

See above, the problem of supporting and paying for the insurance with people switching in and out as they see fit.

Absolutely, the mandate is currently toothless, and that's not a very good plan.

I made up 21 as an arbitrary number and it's certainly not one I'm married to. Just if you want to have affordable health care for all, everyone has to participate, we can't have folks only choosing to pick up their part of the tab when they get ill. Defeats the practical purpose of insurance.

I would argue it is in fact not simpler constitutionally.

I'd be curious as to how? AFAIK the government has the power to tax whatever it wants and the power to allow deductions whenever it wants, so it seems pretty straightforward to me.

Thats exactly the point, your contradicting your own points about "opting out" of the mandate. Your absolutely right, the current bill rests on the mandate. Without it, its crap (well more crap than it is now).

Don't think I'm contradicting any of my points. I feel that one should either be part of the health care system (and buy health insurance) or not participate at all. If you head over to the ER and expect free care without contributing financially, you're a leech. If you're too poor and that's the reason, then I'm sympathetic and I think we should help those folks.

Our society seems to value the idea of not turning away people who are sick. I think this is an admirable goal, but in order to achieve it efficiently, we'll need a mandate. However, I respect personal decisions, I feel if someone of sound mind and body wants to opt out of the health care system we have and pay their own way, they should have that right. If I gave a different impression then I apologize, this is what I think.

Your really reaching outside the arm of the law here, this is not something that could be laid out legally by any means.

Again, if you could cite the differences between state constitutions and the national constitution that make it okay to mandate at a state level, but not a national level, this would be of great help to clearing up this confusion.

You mentioned earlier that you thought a federal mandate for auto insurance wouldn't fly, so I am making the assumption that the same issue that would prevent that is the one that would make a health care mandate impossible. If I am wrong, please correct me.

 

[7starmantis]

the government is pressuring people to buy a private commodity in order to be alive? That's an exaggeration.

How so? (to clarify I said “for simply being alive” not “in order to be alive”)

You're trivializing my argument with the fishing license thing, and that's really not appreciated. And you're arguing within the confines of your own definition of government. I could cited a practice from Ancient Athenian government, and to me, It may still have some validity. I didn't say that it was a perfect model, simply that it could be somewhat applicable. I didn't even say how it could be applicable. I merely said that it's a case in which our government, on any level, exerts pressure to buy a private commodity. If you can't agree with that much, you're letting your biases cloud your perception of a pretty general statement there. And I won't try to convince you otherwise because you really don't leave room for objectivity, and i really don't have any energy to waste on one statement any longer.

I don’t mean to trivialize it at all, just using an example to show how its not relatable. It was simply the first example to pop into my head, don’t be so quick to read insults into posts here, tone gets lost via text. I don’t really see how its trivial, to be honest. I’m not using my definition of government, I’m using the definition of government. Just because the words are linguistically similar doesn’t mean they are related. Fed and state are very different.

You can cite practice from any government but it wouldn't hold water in a discussion about United States constitutional matters. SCOTUS isn't concerned with ancient Athenian governmental practices anymore than it is individual state matters.

You dont know my biases, try not to assume. I see what your saying, but its just not the same thing, legally, constitutionally. Objectivity is fine, I just want to stay within the confines of the relevant discussion. Current state precedents do not affect constitutional arguments, bottom line. To address the issue of constitutionality with arguments outside the constitution is moot.

And your line about the layman's point of practicality - Are you an expert on the matter? did legislature enlist you to construct a plausible application or something? What qualifies you to belittle every little admission here? And if you are so expertly qualified, why not spend your time offering practical applications for this bill rather than doggedly shooting down everyone else's speculation? Better yet, if your not the lay man, what are you doing in this forum?

Whoa, lets chilax a bit. We should keep our egos in check, there is no insult in using the term “layman”. I apologize if I insulted you, but as a future professional (and physician) you need to be okay defining where your expertise begins and ends. If your not constitutionally educated or trained, its not untrue. I’m a constitutional hobbyist, went to school for political science (the first time lol) nearly applied to law school and almost went MD/JD even recently. My brother is a constitutional attorney who has been sworn into SCOTUS and has presented several briefs and cases in the court. I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, but have spent many years of my life (probably most of your life) in constitutional law as a hobby and employment. So, while I didn’t claim to not be a “lay man” I’m just offering some facts I’ve learned in my life.

I’m not belittling anything, don’t get so upset when someone disagrees with you man, just pointing out my opinion. You really seemed to overreact here, again I apologize if I upset you. No need to take things so personally.

 

[7starmantis]

I made up 21 as an arbitrary number and it's certainly not one I'm married to. Just if you want to have affordable health care for all, everyone has to participate, we can't have folks only choosing to pick up their part of the tab when they get ill. Defeats the practical purpose of insurance.

I understand, and I dont mean to make it about the number 21. To make someone decide such a severe thing at one decisions at any age or point in life is really risky to say the least. I completely agree that people jumping on board just for when they get sick will not work.

I'd be curious as to how? AFAIK the government has the power to tax whatever it wants and the power to allow deductions whenever it wants, so it seems pretty straightforward to me.

The power to tax is not unlimited by any means. However, trying to define a "tax" in the way you did wouldn't hold much weight if challenged in court, thats all I'm saying. However, to go further into disingenuous language and techniques in politics is absolutely opposite from what I feel should be happening in our government anyway.

Don't think I'm contradicting any of my points. I feel that one should either be part of the health care system (and buy health insurance) or not participate at all. If you head over to the ER and expect free care without contributing financially, you're a leech. If you're too poor and that's the reason, then I'm sympathetic and I think we should help those folks.

You have a point, but I would challenge the idea that all those who dont "buy insurance" are "expecting free care without contributing financially". There are many people (including myself for the last several years) who have no insurance by choice and pay 100% of their healthcare bills. Thats not a drain on the system. I think there are other ways of covering the truly needy without overstepping our bounds constitutionally. We dont need to hurt the 84% of Americans who like their healthcare currently.

I agree, helping those folks is good and needed, just dont think its the federal governments responsibility or that they can do it better or even efficiently over other options.

Our society seems to value the idea of not turning away people who are sick. I think this is an admirable goal, but in order to achieve it efficiently, we'll need a mandate. However, I respect personal decisions, I feel if someone of sound mind and body wants to opt out of the health care system we have and pay their own way, they should have that right. If I gave a different impression then I apologize, this is what I think.

I agree with you, but a "mandate" wouldn't allow "opting out" by definition.

I think we agree here.

Again, if you could cite the differences between state constitutions and the national constitution that make it okay to mandate at a state level, but not a national level, this would be of great help to clearing up this confusion.

First, I dont agree that there is a mandate at the state level. It may be technical, but no mandate exists as it addresses auto insurance, like I said, you can still decide not to buy and not face penalties. Also, I dont really agree (legally) with the auto insurance as it stands now. I thikn it works, but I think its overreaching. Just my opinions. Second, each state is different, I couldn't possibly lay it all out, but all we really have to do is determine if the fed can do it or not. Constitutionally they can't, thats all I'm saying. That may change though, who knows.

You mentioned earlier that you thought a federal mandate for auto insurance wouldn't fly, so I am making the assumption that the same issue that would prevent that is the one that would make a health care mandate impossible. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I didn't mean to say it wouldn't fly, just that its very different. I may or may not fly. But we agree that this is the case that may allow the fed mandate to be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[bluv1212]

I accept your apology, and I'm sorry but your comments aren't exactly welcoming to anyone that wishes to comment. And to clear it up, I never said anything about the constitution, and I didn't mention state or federal government until you brought it into the discussion. I commented on a previous statement I saw that may have not been pertinent to whatever discussion you were having about constitutionality of health reform.

I'm not attacking you, But don't you find it the least bit arrogant that you presume your definition of government is the sole definition? How can you dismiss my statement is irrelevant without ever asking me to clarify or elaborate. It's one sentence. You couldn't acknowledge any possible relevance? that's arrogance.

I can take when people disagree. I debate all the time-it's one of my favorite pass times. You responded to my comment, which wasn't directed to you, with indifference.
In your writing you seem to be a very intelligent person, But it would serve you well to be less overbearing with your opinions, whether your right or wrong. Maybe take the time to ask questions, before you render your judgment so quickly. As a doctor, you will probably confront people far less agreeable than your average pre-med, and possibly in a far more stressful setting.

With this said, i don't feel very welcomed to comment in this thread any further. It's unfortunate because maybe I could have learned you, someone older and more experienced in law and policy. Now, I'm just gonna unsubscribe.

Later, good luck to you guys in your future endeavors.

I'm out.

 

[Babnik]

FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES take $$$ out of the healthcare system and pour it out into the business world and stock markets.
:

I think many people on here are confused about simple economic concepts, we are pre-meds after all. I would recommend reading a book on basic economics.

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-3rd-Ed-Economy/dp/0465002609


This should open your eyes to what is really going on.

 

[7starmantis]

I accept your apology, and I'm sorry but your comments aren't exactly welcoming to anyone that wishes to comment. And to clear it up, I never said anything about the constitution, and I didn't mention state or federal government until you brought it into the discussion. I commented on a previous statement I saw that may have not been pertinent to whatever discussion you were having about constitutionality of health reform.

First, I'm not trying to welcome people, just post my opinion. I think thicker skin might be in order if your going to pursue medicine. The discussion is about the constitution, it matters not if you brought it up. You still seem to be missing the point. If your make a statement about the current federal mandate (that is being challenged as to its constitutionality) in reference to a state issue, you opened the door to statements about the constitution.

I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient or insulting. I'm just trying to post my opinions just like you are. I'm really pretty confused to the way you have reacted. This isn't personal about you by any means.

I'm not attacking you, But don't you find it the least bit arrogant that you presume your definition of government is the sole definition? How can you dismiss my statement is irrelevant without ever asking me to clarify or elaborate. It's one sentence. You couldn't acknowledge any possible relevance? that's arrogance.

lol I'm not presuming anything. There are set definitions to words that society as a whole accepts. The definition of federal and state government is static, I'm not using my definition but the definition. You really confuse me. If you can't accept definitions of terms there really is no debate (that might be the point here). There is no relevance to the constitution in this case. Not sure whats going on here really.

I can take when people disagree. I debate all the time-it's one of my favorite pass times. You responded to my comment, which wasn't directed to you, with indifference.

Right, I am indifferent, just posting my opinion, not trying to insult anyone. Again, I'm really confused about your post.

In your writing you seem to be a very intelligent person, But it would serve you well to be less overbearing with your opinions, whether your right or wrong. Maybe take the time to ask questions, before you render your judgment so quickly. As a doctor, you will probably confront people far less agreeable than your average pre-med, and possibly in a far more stressful setting.

Not being overbearing, just pointing out facts. If you dont like that the facts contradict your statement, thats not my problem. It wont kill you to say, "you know, I didn't think about it that way, maybe I was wrong". Might taste like vinegar to some egos, but wont kill you, I promise. Lol, I didn't render a judgement! I just posted my opinion of your statement. Seriously, I'm not sure why or what your getting at here.

With this said, i don't feel very welcomed to comment in this thread any further. It's unfortunate because maybe I could have learned you, someone older and more experienced in law and policy. Now, I'm just gonna unsubscribe.

lol Look, you going to have to grow thicker skin if your going to hold your own amongst your peers (especially if you become a physician). I'm just saying it as it is, straightforward. If that offends you or makes you feel unwelcome, I'm sorry. Maybe its better that you not post on topics like this then.

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

You have a point, but I would challenge the idea that all those who dont "buy insurance" are "expecting free care without contributing financially". There are many people (including myself for the last several years) who have no insurance by choice and pay 100% of their healthcare bills. Thats not a drain on the system. I think there are other ways of covering the truly needy without overstepping our bounds constitutionally. We dont need to hurt the 84% of Americans who like their healthcare currently.

True, but would you be able to afford $200,000 of chemo if you came down with a rare cancer? And by you, I don't mean you specifically, but the thousands of Americans who don't buy health insurance (not that I blame them, it's friggen expensive). That's what I mean by drain and expecting free care. Not on an individual basis, but as a statistical group, folks who choose not to buy insurance receive some "free" care.

To give an example, I have a friend who doesn't have health insurance, but he does have about 250,000 in disposable income. He can definitely not take insurance, without risking medical bankruptcy.

 

[7starmantis]

True, but would you be able to afford $200,000 of chemo if you came down with a rare cancer? And by you, I don't mean you specifically, but the thousands of Americans who don't buy health insurance (not that I blame them, it's friggen expensive). That's what I mean by drain and expecting free care. Not on an individual basis, but as a statistical group, folks who choose not to buy insurance receive some "free" care.

To give an example, I have a friend who doesn't have health insurance, but he does have about 250,000 in disposable income. He can definitely not take insurance, without risking medical bankruptcy.

I definitely agree with you, but my point is that isn't whats happening to everyone who doesn't buy insurance. Your correct that it imposes some level of "risk" but not everyone is getting $200,000 in chemo.

To be clear, I'm not saying its ok to just leave things as they are, I'm just saying there are ways to address specific issues and not try and fix the whole thing with one huge bill. Thats when all these "unintended" consequences start falling into place.

 

[rama kandra]

I am back brothers and sisters! How can I help?

 

[UnlonelyRoad]

I definitely agree with you, but my point is that isn't whats happening to everyone who doesn't buy insurance. Your correct that it imposes some level of "risk" but not everyone is getting $200,000 in chemo.

Didn't you hear? Chemo is now mandated in the health care bill.

To be clear, I'm not saying its ok to just leave things as they are, I'm just saying there are ways to address specific issues and not try and fix the whole thing with one huge bill. Thats when all these "unintended" consequences start falling into place.

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people on both sides of Congress that think they know the best way to solve health care. Most of them don't have the slightest idea, but they do have a lot of opinions. As a result, you take what might have been a good idea from the start and mush a lot of dumb things on it, so you get a bill that is frankly, sub-par, especially considering the amount of work that went into it.

Then I think as a reasonable person you're left with two opinions. Vote it down and hope they start over (hardly a given) or vote for it and hope they fix it later (also hardly a given).

The additional coverage it provides will be good for a lot of Americans and that's basically what sold me on the latter stance.

 

[7starmantis]

I think the problem is that there are a lot of people on both sides of Congress that think they know the best way to solve health care. Most of them don't have the slightest idea, but they do have a lot of opinions. As a result, you take what might have been a good idea from the start and mush a lot of dumb things on it, so you get a bill that is frankly, sub-par, especially considering the amount of work that went into it.

Then I think as a reasonable person you're left with two opinions. Vote it down and hope they start over (hardly a given) or vote for it and hope they fix it later (also hardly a given).

The additional coverage it provides will be good for a lot of Americans and that's basically what sold me on the latter stance.

I think you make a great point. I sure wish more debate had been had with doctors, nurses, patients, patents families, PA's, NP's, rad techs, lab techs, etc etc. The arrogance of the people in our government thinking they always know better than everyone else on all subjects, is just stupid.