kelpdiver 2 #51 December 14, 2010 Quote So, back to that question. How do we solve the problem of people using medical services they can't pay for (either through insurance or their own funds), while still respecting EMTALA and the constitution? Don I've been trying to nudge the subject back towards prevention. However, this is completely missing from Obamacare. "OC" will remove some of the problem with the insured subsidizing the uninsured, but that may well end up increasing costs rather than reducing. Right now the uninsured have great incentive not to seek care unless they really need it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 December 14, 2010 QuoteI've been trying to nudge the subject back towards prevention. However, this is completely missing from Obamacare. It's like requiring everyone to buy full coverage auto insurance with towing whether they have an Escalade or an Escort, with no discount for good driving, no penalties for age/tickets - indeed, whether you own a car or not. Quote"OC" will remove some of the problem with the insured subsidizing the uninsured, but that may well end up increasing costs rather than reducing. Right now the uninsured have great incentive not to seek care unless they really need it. I don't believe it will lower costs - there's too many loopholes and waivers. See the example above - how much do you think that policy is going to cost when the insurance company has to cover tuneups, tires and oil changes and you can claim against the collision damage from 3 years ago, before you had the insurance? How long do you think the insurance companies are going to be able to stay solvent with those types of 'mandates' hanging over them?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #53 December 15, 2010 QuoteA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read this as a mandate that all Americans should be required to carry guns. Since there seems to be nothing in the Constitution that restricts the govt. from requiring the citizens to purchase something for their own good. It very clearly states carrying a gun is necessary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #54 December 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read this as a mandate that all Americans should be required to carry guns. Since there seems to be nothing in the Constitution that restricts the govt. from requiring the citizens to purchase something for their own good. It very clearly states carrying a gun is necessary. +1"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #55 December 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read this as a mandate that all Americans should be required to carry guns. Since there seems to be nothing in the Constitution that restricts the govt. from requiring the citizens to purchase something for their own good. It very clearly states carrying a gun is necessary. +1 The wall Street Journal reports that Kagen should recuse herself if it goes to the Supreme Court. QuoteThe Wall Street Journal writes that The Senate should press Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the state lawsuit against ObamaCare. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704288204575363112109060620.html&ei=MM8ITaG-FcH38Aas06RE&usg=AFQjCNEy86h6ogK-Vms91dYqlk5TEp_03Q I would think that since she worked on it (Gave Advice), I believe she lobbied for it, and promoted it, she is obviously biased toward it and cannot give impartility.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #56 December 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read this as a mandate that all Americans should be required to carry guns. Since there seems to be nothing in the Constitution that restricts the govt. from requiring the citizens to purchase something for their own good. It very clearly states carrying a gun is necessary. +1 The wall Street Journal reports that Kagen should recuse herself if it goes to the Supreme Court. QuoteThe Wall Street Journal writes that The Senate should press Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the state lawsuit against ObamaCare. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704288204575363112109060620.html&ei=MM8ITaG-FcH38Aas06RE&usg=AFQjCNEy86h6ogK-Vms91dYqlk5TEp_03Q I would think that since she worked on it (Gave Advice), I believe she lobbied for it, and promoted it, she is obviously biased toward it and cannot give impartility. I think I read there are many she would have to do this for. This make about 10 so far. CNN reports she make have to sit out as many as 24 cases of the 52 on the schedule http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-04/politics/scotus.new.term_1_military-funerals-westboro-baptist-church-fred-phelps?_s=PM:POLITICS"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #57 December 15, 2010 Quote I read this as a mandate that all Americans should be required to carry guns. Since there seems to be nothing in the Constitution that restricts the govt. from requiring the citizens to purchase something for their own good. It very clearly states carrying a gun is necessary. That's right. And they can regulate under the Commerce Clause. Purchasing weapons clearly affects interstate commerce. Not purchasing weapons also affects it since sooner or later everybody is going to be particiapting either by shooting or by being shot."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #58 December 15, 2010 Quote Quote I read this as a mandate that all Americans should be required to carry guns. Since there seems to be nothing in the Constitution that restricts the govt. from requiring the citizens to purchase something for their own good. It very clearly states carrying a gun is necessary. That's right. And they can regulate under the Commerce Clause. Purchasing weapons clearly affects interstate commerce. Not purchasing weapons also affects it since sooner or later everybody is going to be particiapting either by shooting or by being shot. The streets will be running red with blood! Ya know - I bet the doctors might just vett this. look at all the extra work they will be doing.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #59 December 16, 2010 Quote I wonder if you, or anyone, can see a solution that preserves peoples freedom to "opt out" without sticking those of us who "opt in" with the bill, or creating a situation where many people who have paid in are denied care when they most need it. Don Raise taxes, then give a compensating credit to those with insurance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #60 December 16, 2010 QuoteQuote So, back to that question. How do we solve the problem of people using medical services they can't pay for (either through insurance or their own funds), while still respecting EMTALA and the constitution? Don I've been trying to nudge the subject back towards prevention. However, this is completely missing from Obamacare. "OC" will remove some of the problem with the insured subsidizing the uninsured, but that may well end up increasing costs rather than reducing. Right now the uninsured have great incentive not to seek care unless they really need it. That's a lousy policy - in general preventive care is much cheaper than emergent care.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 December 16, 2010 Quote That's a lousy policy - in general preventive care is much cheaper than emergent care. "in general" every flu season, millions of people crowd down to the hospital and demand useless antibiotics, or other non existent cures. Considerable cost with no return. preventative care is early cancer detection, or handling blood pressure when its in the 130s or 140s. It's not going down whenever you feel off, because it only costs you a $10 copay. Right now the uninsured only get care to keep them alive. Not even well. Forget about most orthopedic surgery. So these are real costs of insuring them, greater than existed before. Same with type II diabetics. I'd much rather spend that money trying to combat obesity and eliminate a considerable portion of the IIs out there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #62 December 16, 2010 I guess things are different everywhere you go, but here in my little rural part of the world, we take pretty good care of people without insurance. There are so many of them. As long as they're paying *something.* Often that's $5 a month. Many of 'em cost me more to take care of than I make taking care of them. Forget orthopaedic surgery? That's wrong too. Our orthopaedists take care of my uninsured patients too when they need it. No questions asked. Same with cardiologists, urologists. There are some specialists that are harder to access though. The problem becomes the patient's bill. They DO get pretty decent treatment, but they're left with a bill. I have one patient who won't come back in after she filed bankruptcy because she knows I won't get paid. I'd rather just take care of her. It all comes out in the wash.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
