Wherein Obama makes my point for me...

[Yonivore]

In Ohio today, President Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/health/policy/16health.html?hp), who repeatedly claims everything that needs to be said on health care, has been said and that the time for talk is over -- decided to say more:


President Obama, declaring that "every argument has been made" on his health care overhaul, sought to seal the deal with Congress and the American people on Monday by focusing on a single patient: a self-employed cleaning woman who had dropped her costly insurance plan, only to discover she had leukemia. ...

"The reason Natoma is not here today is that she's lying in a hospital bed, suddenly faced with this emergency -- suddenly thrust into a fight for her life," Mr. Obama said. "She expects to face a month or more of aggressive chemotherapy. ..." The crowd grew momentarily silent, and the president added: "So you want to know why I'm here, Ohio? I'm here because of Natoma [Canfield]."
The Times, for their part, described Canfield's story as a "health care drama that could not have been better scripted for his purposes if he had written it himself."

Yeah, let's count the ways in which it precisely refutes the usefulness of Obamacare:

1) Under Obamacare, it would be illegal for Ms. Canfield to drop her health insurance, as she is reported to have done.

2) Taxpayers would subsidize her legally required insurance policy but, not until 2014. I suspect Ms. Canfield can't wait that long. [Under the Republican plan, however, she would immediately subsidize or initiate state high-risk pools, and can also be expected to lower, rather than raise, individual insurance costs.]

3) Instead of making the case the uninsured are suffering a lack of medical care, Ms. Canfield is, in fact, in a hospital undergoing "aggressive chemotherapy." And, her bills will be paid, presumably, by some combination of taxpayers and patients who have insurance, much as they would be under Obamacare.

There's three ways Ms. Canfield has helped defeat Obamacare today. Can you think of any more?

Thank God for Ms. Canfield receiving medical care, as I said she would, without the benefit of Obamacare!!!

[Winehole23]

Wherein Yoni improvises only slightly on the theme already given in powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025838.php), folding in his own ad libs, numeration and line breaks for originality's sake...

[Yonivore]

Wherein Yoni improvises only slightly on the theme already given in powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025838.php), folding in his own ad libs, numeration and line breaks for originality's sake...
The uninsured Canfield is receiving medical care without Obamacare. Can't answer that one, eh?

[Ignignokt]

We won!

[ElNono]

Boehner's solution: Suggesting GOP plan for Canfield (http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0310/boehners_solution_3a11ac79-4d5e-4fff-aa04-62f65233c92b.html)

Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), offered a provocative riposte to President Obama’s Monday mention of cancer-stricken cleaning worker Natoma Canfield as an example of someone who would benefit from comprehensive health care reform.

In his visit to Strongsville, Ohio, Obama said he chose the venue in part because Canfield lived near there. Canfield’s letter to Obama earlier this year -- explaining that she had to drop her coverage after her insurance company raised her rates by 40 percent – has become an administration rallying cry.

But in an email that dropped as Obama was speaking, Steel argued that the delayed implementation of the Democrats’ health care bill would deny coverage to Canfield for about four years. The GOP alternative, a $25 billion infusion into state “high-risk” pools, would help her faster, he argued, despite complaints such pools are expensive and unwieldy.

“[I]ronically, Ms. Canfield would benefit far more from House Republicans’ health care plan than the President’s,” Steel wrote. “Why? Under the President’s plan, she would theoretically get a subsidy and new insurance rules four years from now, in 2014. That isn’t going to help her now. Our plan immediately puts more money into state high-risk pools, or establishes them in states where they currently do not exist.”

The problem is that high-risk pools, which currently cover about 300,000 people in 30 states, come with their own set of significant problems. Moreover, the Obama administration already plans to use the pool system to bridge the gap until their planned 2014 reforms kick in. (The House GOP proposal, which is similar to one offered by John McCain during the 2008 campaign, mandates no waiting list for service.)

But patients’ advocates say using the pool structure as a substitute rather than a stopgap is a bad idea: Even without waiting lists, pool administrators often create long delays by demanding excruciating levels of documentation to ensure patients aren’t gaming the system. And in some cases, the people who run pools flat-out deny payment to those who are otherwise eligible, just like insurance companies.

Moreover, the programs have proven to be enormously expensive and often come with high ($1,000 or greater) deductibles. They also don’t cover more routine medical costs, and even supporters of the pool concept say a lot more than the GOP’s $25 billion would be needed to cover all uninsured people with pre-existing conditions.

The net effect: Some high-risk pool patients with cancer told NPR in late ’08 that they preferred duking it out with their old insurance providers than fighting with high-risk pool administrators over their benefits.

“The President’s plan includes high-risk pools as well prior to 2014 for uninsured folks with pre-existing conditions,” says White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. “Our high-risk pool is a bridge to guaranteed coverage and no pre-existing conditions. It will protect you in the interim until you get permanent protection. Theirs leaves the insurance companies in charge of deciding whether you can afford coverage or not.”

[Yonivore]

All of which ignores the elephant in the room.

Ms. Canfield is uninsured and is receiving "aggressive" treatment, in a hospital, without the benefit of the multi-trillion dollar Obamacare.

How.is.that.possible?

[Winehole23]

The uninsured Canfield is receiving medical care without Obamacare. Can't answer that one, eh?I never disputed it.

[ElNono]

All of which ignores the elephant in the room.

Ms. Canfield is uninsured and is receiving "aggressive" treatment, in a hospital, without the benefit of the multi-trillion dollar Obamacare.

How.is.that.possible?

You don't think a bill for her medical care is piling up?
She's already worried of losing her house (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/15/clinic-cancer-patient-wrote-obama-lose-home-aid/)

[Yonivore]

I never disputed it.
So, why do we need an unpopular health care reform bill shoved down our throats by a bunch of unpopular Democrat politicians?

[Winehole23]

Don't ask me, I'm not for it.

[Yonivore]

You don't think a bill for her medical care is piling up?
She's already worried of losing her house (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/15/clinic-cancer-patient-wrote-obama-lose-home-aid/)
We all incur debts that lead to choices.

That doesn't mean her debt should be spread amongst the rest of us who are having similar struggles to meet our obligations. Increase my taxes to pay for her health care and I'll be worried about losing my house.

Everyone's budget is tight. Medical care costs money; she's fortunate it's available on credit.

[ElNono]

We all incur debts that lead to choices.

That doesn't mean her debt should be spread amongst the rest of us who are having similar struggles to meet our obligations. Increase my taxes to pay for her health care and I'll be worried about losing my house.

Everyone's budget is tight. Medical care costs money; she's fortunate it's available on credit.

So now you change your tune, uh?

Not everyone has access to credit, or own a house. And it's yet to be seen if she gets to keep it, and how long it will set her back to pay all that mounted debt if she even survives.

I think we can do a lot better as a society, and as one of the most resourceful nations on the planet. I'm actually glad I have a complete opposite view from you on this topic.

[Yonivore]

So now you change your tune, uh?
I haven't changed my tune.


Not everyone has access to credit,...
Everyone has access to medical credit. As Ms. Canfield has aptly demonstrated, she is receiving "aggressive" cancer treatments and she doesn't have insurance or any visible means by which to pay off the debt that is certain accruing as a result

However, Aside from ruining her credit rating, I know of no cases where someone's home has been taken for payment of medical expenses.


...or own a house. And it's yet to be seen if she gets to keep it, and how long it will set her back to pay all that mounted debt if she even survives.
If she survives, and I hope she does, what she will find -- if she is willing to deal honestly with her medical creditors -- is a system that is compassionate and willing to accept what she's able to pay, write off other debts, and generally work with her.

Then, there's always bankruptcy.

The fact remains, she's getting medical care...and Obama didn't have anything to do with that.


I think we can do a lot better as a society, and as one of the most resourceful nations on the planet. I'm actually glad I have a complete opposite view from you on this topic.
If you think her falling under government-provided health care where-in a bureaucracy will determine if and when she gets care is better than what she's dealing with now, I refer you to the Canadian that ran to the Mayo Clinic after waiting 16 days for a referral only to be denied because -- well, they'd waited too long and he was no longer a viable candidate for treatment.

That's what you get with Obamacare.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, I oppose "Obamacare"...


Yeah, let's count the ways in which it precisely refutes the usefulness of Obamacare:

1) Under Obamacare, it would be illegal for Ms. Canfield to drop her health insurance, as she is reported to have done.

...but Got d@mn, are you fucking retarded? Seriously.

[Yonivore]

Yes, I oppose "Obamacare"...


Yeah, let's count the ways in which it precisely refutes the usefulness of Obamacare:

1) Under Obamacare, it would be illegal for Ms. Canfield to drop her health insurance, as she is reported to have done.

...but Got d@mn, are you fucking retarded? Seriously.
The current bill has an individual mandate providing for penalties. By law, Ms. Canfield would be required to carry insurance.

Seriously.

[Marcus Bryant]

No shit.

But proffering as a reason against it that someone would have been required to have such coverage when that person otherwise wouldn't be as bad off financially isn't the best sales pitch.

Motherfucker.

[Yonivore]

No shit.

But proffering as a reason against it that someone would have been required to have such coverage when that person otherwise wouldn't be as bad off financially isn't the best sales pitch.
Who said she wouldn't be as bad off financially?

And, even, if she weren't, under the insurance she'd be mandated to hold, the government would have a lot more say about whether or not the hospital, in which she's now receiving "aggressive" care, would even be treating her at all.

Ask Obama's advisor, Dr. Emmanuel, about that one.


Motherfucker.
Alrighty, then...nice argument.

[ElNono]

I haven't changed my tune.

Sure you have. You kept asking who is paying for her medical care since she has no insurance, and the answer is: she's paying or will be paying for it. She will probably have to give up her house and/or life savings in the process.


Everyone has access to medical credit. As Ms. Canfield has aptly demonstrated, she is receiving "aggressive" cancer treatments and she doesn't have insurance or any visible means by which to pay off the debt that is certain accruing as a result

And because it means complete financial ruin for her, the Cleveland clinic is tirelessly trying to find Medicare/Charity care for her. Which at this point is uncertain.


However, Aside from ruining her credit rating, I know of no cases where someone's home has been taken for payment of medical expenses.

So you never heard.... right. You don't know what happens when you declare bankruptcy? You think your house, an asset, is exempt from liquidation to pay your debtors?

You need to inform yourself better.


If she survives, and I hope she does, what she will find -- if she is willing to deal honestly with her medical creditors -- is a system that is compassionate and willing to accept what she's able to pay, write off other debts, and generally work with her.

Just as long as she can find work and can keep up with payments. Which will undoubtedly will set her back for many years. If she cannot, then she's going to have to declare bankruptcy, in which case the whole 'compassionate and willing to accept' part goes down the drain and is replaced with court orders liquidating everything she has.


Then, there's always bankruptcy.

Over 50% of those filed in this country are tied to medical expenses. Is that not a common enough occurrence for you?


The fact remains, she's getting medical care...and Obama didn't have anything to do with that.

The fact remains, under the status quo, this health situation will most likely ruin her life for years to come.


If you think her falling under government-provided health care where-in a bureaucracy will determine if and when she gets care is better than what she's dealing with now, I refer you to the Canadian that ran to the Mayo Clinic after waiting 16 days for a referral only to be denied because -- well, they'd waited too long and he was no longer a viable candidate for treatment.

Canadians know more than you about their own system, and they're more than satisfied with the healthcare they receive. Furthermore, that single isolated case you keep on clinging on, was only possible after that person's family and friends were able to muster upwards of 100K to pay the Mayo clinic. It's nice to have rich friends and family, but not everyone does.


That's what you get with Obamacare.

Actually, that's not what you get with Obamacare. What you get is the preservation of the status quo. You keep on preaching how all the private insurance companies will disappear with the proposed plan, but fail to acknowledge that most insurance co's are actually onboard with the proposed plan.

[Marcus Bryant]

If....

Saying that she would have had insurance instead of not having insurance is not compelling. It makes you look stupid, and unfortunately doesn't help those who oppose it.

Fairly. Fucking. Obvious.

[ElNono]

And, even, if she weren't, under the insurance she'd be mandated to hold, the government would have a lot more say about whether or not the hospital, in which she's now receiving "aggressive" care, would even be treating her at all.

Why? She's forced to carry private insurance. If anything, the insurance co would be the responsible one.

[Winehole23]

Yoni wants to have it both ways. He believes Obamacare will cover Ms Canfield at massive public expense, while at the same time denying her treatment altogether.

Ho hum. More death panel *musings* in the monkey cage...

[boutons_deux]

Canfield gets a free ride on taxpaying Yoni's taxes.

There are millions of uninsured who don't "Just Go To The Emergency Room (c)". Because of the cost, they put it off for months or years.

Their perhaps-curable disease (diabetes, cancer, CVD, stroke) is 10x worse and 100x more expensive to treat, and very probably is incurable, only VERY expensively treatable with taxpayers picking up the VASTLY INFLATED tab.

What say you, Oh Militantly Partisan Yoni, the Turd Strafer?

[ElNono]

Not to mention that should she not survive treatment, that's not going to stop the debtors from collecting on her house or anything else she could have left behind to her family.

[ElNono]

Yoni wants to have it both ways. He believes Obamacare will cover Ms Canfield at massive public expense, while at the same time denying her treatment altogether.

Ho hum. More death panel *musings* in the monkey cage...

Really. Plus you're free to fly to Costa Rica! Problem solved!

[ChumpDumper]

Selfish bitch wants to live and have a place to live?

[RandomGuy]

3) Instead of making the case the uninsured are suffering a lack of medical care, Ms. Canfield is, in fact, in a hospital undergoing "aggressive chemotherapy." And, her bills will be paid, presumably, by some combination of taxpayers and patients who have insurance, much as they would be under Obamacare.


How would any Republican proposal defeat adverse selection?

[and the self-sustaining spiral implied?]

[101A]

The Hospital she is at has a $100 million charitable fund; they are also actively searching for options for the patient: including Medicaid, and at least "8 other avenues".

[coyotes_geek]

Using leukemia and cancer patients as political props for these poster pieces is so old and tired. Here's who Obama needs to be trotting out there as his subject piece for healthcare reform.

Super sized mother determined to become world's fattest woman (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148820)

[mogrovejo]

Funny how fearmongering and toying with emotions becomes admissible if it's done by Obama.

ElNono, do you have the numbers for how many people would avoid bankruptcy if they were allowed to keep the money they have to deliver to the government in the form of taxes? Do you have the number of people who will go bankrupt once the money the government confiscates increases due to this new entitlement program?

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how fearmongering and toying with emotions becomes admissible if it's done by Obama.

ElNono, do you have the numbers for how many people would avoid bankruptcy if they were allowed to keep the money they have to deliver to the government in the form of taxes? Do you have the number of people who will go bankrupt once the money the government confiscates increases due to this new entitlement program?Do you?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Funny how fearmongering and toying with emotions becomes admissible if it's done by Obama.

ElNono, do you have the numbers for how many people would avoid bankruptcy if they were allowed to keep the money they have to deliver to the government in the form of taxes? Do you have the number of people who will go bankrupt once the money the government confiscates increases due to this new entitlement program?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

[mogrovejo]

About the stories of the people that are going to die/go bankrupt if his BigFarma-sponsored bill which counts with bipartisanship opposition doesn't pass.

[George Gervin's Afro]

About the stories of the people that are going to die/go bankrupt if his BigFarma-sponsored bill which counts with bipartisanship opposition doesn't pass.

They are going bankrupt now.. that's the truth not a scare tactic. I guess if the truth is scary we probably shouldn't talk about it.

[mogrovejo]

They are going bankrupt now.. that's the truth not a scare tactic. I guess if the truth is scary we probably shouldn't talk about it.

Oh, I think we should. Obama and Giuliani alike. I just found the duplicity from the left funny. What about you?

[Yonivore]

Clinic: Cancer Patient Who Wrote to Obama Will Not Lose Home, May Get Aid (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/15/clinic-cancer-patient-wrote-obama-lose-home-aid/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528T ext+-+Politics%2529)


But Sornberger said that even if Canfield doesn't qualify for charity care or Medicaid, "there's probably eight to 10 options that a patient has" to find payment.
Just as there are multiple options for all patients similarly situated.

And, none of those 8-10 other options are Obamacare.

[coyotes_geek]

I guess if the truth is scary we probably shouldn't talk about it.

Like social security and medicare for example.................

[George Gervin's Afro]

Clinic: Cancer Patient Who Wrote to Obama Will Not Lose Home, May Get Aid (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/15/clinic-cancer-patient-wrote-obama-lose-home-aid/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528T ext+-+Politics%2529)


Just as there are multiple options for all patients similarly situated.

And, none of those 8-10 other options are Obamacare.

are these options available for everyone else? I'll anxiously await your response.

[ElNono]

ElNono, do you have the numbers for how many people would avoid bankruptcy if they were allowed to keep the money they have to deliver to the government in the form of taxes? Do you have the number of people who will go bankrupt once the money the government confiscates increases due to this new entitlement program?

Considering that taxation is based on a percentage of your actual income, your assessment of bankruptcy due to taxation is deeply flawed.

But you knew that. :jack

[ElNono]

About the stories of the people that are going to die/go bankrupt if his BigFarma-sponsored bill which counts with bipartisanship opposition doesn't pass.

That would be Big Pharma. Feel free to add Insurance Co-sponsored bill too.
And the two things are not mutually exclusive. The proposed legislation certainly does not address the affordability to care dilemma. I would even argue that it exacerbates it.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's a question I have:

I'm sure more conservatives would agree that the buildup of wealth in a country is a positive thing, correct?

I'm sure they would also agree that people who contract a deadly disease, through no fault of their own, could lose all their wealth trying to take care of it.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we could defray the cost of the health care by spreading it out amongst a greater number of people, thereby keeping a greater level of wealth in the country, would this be desirable? Or should the ability to keep one's wages trump the ability of a nation to maintain wealth?

[Wild Cobra]

Here's a question I have:

I'm sure more conservatives would agree that the buildup of wealth in a country is a positive thing, correct?

I'm sure they would also agree that people who contract a deadly disease, through no fault of their own, could lose all their wealth trying to take care of it.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we could defray the cost of the health care by spreading it out amongst a greater number of people, thereby keeping a greater level of wealth in the country, would this be desirable? Or should the ability to keep one's wages trump the ability of a nation to maintain wealth?
Yes, However, there are various risk pools.

I don't want to be in the same risk pool as someone who eats 10 pounds a day at McDonalds. I cannot think of a viable way to insure everyone. when you include millions of people who are not assessed premiums by their habits and conditions, it just increases the costs for all of us. This alone, will put some into bankruptcy, else they must reduce their lifestyle costs in other areas.

Health insurance is not a right. It is one of those things that people should strive to have by bettering themselves. I think we already give too much to those who cannot get it themselves. They get cared for in the emergency rooms and clinics. We have free clinics everywhere that charge based on income, and most who go there don't pay one red cent. What the left wants to do, is give everyone even better care. That's fine, but lets do it by increasing the wealth of people so they can participate at market values, instead of redistribution of my wealth and others.

If the government gets involved with people who cannot pay their own way, then I say the program is voluntary. If they choose the government plan, they must live on healthy diets, lose weight if overweight, be drug tested, etc. Otherwise, how do we keep such costs down?

[coyotes_geek]

Here's a question I have:

I'm sure more conservatives would agree that the buildup of wealth in a country is a positive thing, correct?

I'm sure they would also agree that people who contract a deadly disease, through no fault of their own, could lose all their wealth trying to take care of it.

So, hypothetically speaking, if we could defray the cost of the health care by spreading it out amongst a greater number of people, thereby keeping a greater level of wealth in the country, would this be desirable? Or should the ability to keep one's wages trump the ability of a nation to maintain wealth?

Just to play devils advocate with you.......

If lowering health care costs and maintaining a nation's wealth are what's important here, then why not just kick the uninsured out of the emergency rooms and be done with it? Cash, coverage, or GTFO. Would this be desirable?

[Supergirl]

The uninsured Canfield is receiving medical care without Obamacare. Can't answer that one, eh?

Uh, that's EXACTLY the problem. People without health insurance often receive medical care anyway, and hospitals EAT THE COST. Which in turn makes the hospitals charge more for their services, which causes health insurance companies to charge the rest of us with health insurance more in premiums.

Get it now?

[Supergirl]

Just to play devils advocate with you.......

If lowering health care costs and maintaining a nation's wealth are what's important here, then why not just kick the uninsured out of the emergency rooms and be done with it? Cash, coverage, or GTFO. Would this be desirable?

Because doctors take an oath to DO NO HARM, and most of them take it pretty seriously.

[coyotes_geek]

Because doctors take an oath to DO NO HARM, and most of them take it pretty seriously.

Where in that doctors oath does it state that the insured have a financial obligation to fund health care for the uninsured?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Where in that doctors oath does it state that the insured have a financial obligation to fund health care for the uninsured?

new oath proposal: bag 'em and tag 'em unless they pay cash.

[boutons_deux]

"the insured have a financial obligation to fund health care for the uninsured"

The insured(taxed) already pay for the uninsured, this happens with public/county/state-university hospitals/clinics being OBLIGATED (because they are financed with local/state/federal taxes) not to turn anybody away who can't pay. It's about the only truly humane aspect of the entire US medical system.

And yes, these taxpayer-financed public health providers jack up their fees to patients and for-profit insurers when the govt reimbursements fall short, so the tax-paying insured pay AGAIN for the uninsured.

[coyotes_geek]

new oath proposal: bag 'em and tag 'em unless they pay cash.

In a half-serious, half-not response, why not do exactly that?

Premiums would be lowered because there wouldn't be any costs for the uninsured being passed along.

The non-insured would be encouraged to pick up insurance.

No infringement on personal liberty as people would still be free to decide for themselves whether they wanted insurance or not.

And the best part, it doesn't cost anything.

:toast

[LnGrrrR]

Just to play devils advocate with you.......

If lowering health care costs and maintaining a nation's wealth are what's important here, then why not just kick the uninsured out of the emergency rooms and be done with it? Cash, coverage, or GTFO. Would this be desirable?

Of course, we can move goalposts around all day. :) I would argue that some people probably think we SHOULD kick uninsured out of emergency rooms! That's a little inhumane though, and politicians know it, so that argument will never be viable.

It's a balancing set of scales. I think that emergency rooms should be for emergencies only, and if a patient comes in with a non-life-threatening issue, they SHOULD be shown the door. I'm probably in the minority though.

[LnGrrrR]

Where in that doctors oath does it state that the insured have a financial obligation to fund health care for the uninsured?

Here is the TRUE issue, in a nutshell, I feel. Whichever side comes out with the win will hinge upon the answer to this question.

Is it morally justified to force others to pay for the health of a community at large?

Probably not, in a moral sense, but in a real world sense it happens all the time. You pay for the military to protect you, you pay for senior citizens, you pay for government services you might not need. So even though it may not be morally justified on a fundamental level, it occurs often enough to where proponents can use the "Greater good" argument.

[Ignignokt]

Here is the TRUE issue, in a nutshell, I feel. Whichever side comes out with the win will hinge upon the answer to this question.

Is it morally justified to force others to pay for the health of a community at large?

Probably not, in a moral sense, but in a real world sense it happens all the time. You pay for the military to protect you, you pay for senior citizens, you pay for government services you might not need. So even though it may not be morally justified on a fundamental level, it occurs often enough to where proponents can use the "Greater good" argument.

i didn't see the constitution in any of this.

[LnGrrrR]

i didn't see the constitution in any of this.

Would you like to argue that the health care bill is unconstitutional? If so, would you also like to make the argument that Social Security, welfare, and the like are unconstitutional?

If that is the case, I would love for you to explain how they are currently still in existence. With them being, you know, unconstitutional.

[Ignignokt]

Would you like to argue that the health care bill is unconstitutional? If so, would you also like to make the argument that Social Security, welfare, and the like are unconstitutional?

If that is the case, I would love for you to explain how they are currently still in existence. With them being, you know, unconstitutional.

this has illustrated how naive you are.

Sure we can survive on breaking the constitution. We've had Pleggy vs Ferguson, Brown vs Board of Education proving that we as a society haven't lived up to the document. That's why there's a supreme court.

As far as SS, and welfare. The constitution states that taxes are to be enforced to support an army or militia. Welfare, SS, and other programs are not enumerated in there. FDR was the man who openly tried to subvert the constitution by packing the court, and was the man who passed SS. Thanks for proving my point.

For this silly argument anyway.

Should we all have "food insurance". After all, no one in this country must go hungry therefore we must force our citizens to pay for each others grocery lists.

[Wild Cobra]

it occurs often enough to where proponents can use the "Greater good" argument.
Yes, however, the greater good does not mean to place those who cannot pay into a system that will increase the costs.

I think the biggest free market part of the problem is that it is too cheap for those insured. I don't mean the monthly payments, but the per visit costs. Co-pays are non-existent to cheap for most health care plans. That means a person doesn't think twice before seeing a doctor if needed or not, raising the monthly cost to everyone. Same with medications. If I have a plan that gives me any medication for $10 a month, who am I to say "Doc... Do I really need that?" When employers pay the bulk of the cost, the consumers understand the real costs even less. Without the users of health care having a stake in the price structure, things only get worse when you add more people to such a system. Far worse, since the poor will probably have a zero co-pay. As it stands, paying higher costs to cover those who use the emergency rooms and clinics, I think are cheaper than giving them health care benefits with no co-pay.

[Wild Cobra]

Would you like to argue that the health care bill is unconstitutional? If so, would you also like to make the argument that Social Security, welfare, and the like are unconstitutional?

If that is the case, I would love for you to explain how they are currently still in existence. With them being, you know, unconstitutional.
I would argue that mandating full coverage and the methods this far seen the democrats want to impliment are unconstitutional.

You cannot force a person to pay for something they don't desire, and demand a punishment fee if they don't.Health Care is not a right, and even if it was, it would be limited to access to health care. Not forcing participation of it.

Social Security is not a given to all. If you don't participate, you are qualified, except under some procedures never intended.

Welfare... I say is unconstitutional, but few agree with me there. Then I mean allowing long term use of it for those who can provide for themselves.

Still, it isn't a mandatory system. You are not compelled to be on welfare if you don't want to be.

[Wild Cobra]

Should we all have "food insurance". After all, no one in this country must go hungry therefore we must force our citizens to pay for each others grocery lists.
No shit.

What is more basic to life than food and shelter, but neither of there are a guaranteed right!

[Yonivore]

are these options available for everyone else? I'll anxiously await your response.
I don't know what the 8-10 other options, mentioned, are but, yeah...there are various programs available in every state to assist similarly situated patients. Charity and State-run medical aid come in all sorts of sizes, shapes, and varieties.

Bottom line, no one loses their house over non-payment of medical bills. You, me and Ms. Canfield could walk out of the hospital and not pay one cent, continue living our lives as we have, and never fear of losing an asset.

The hospital, in which Ms. Canfield found herself, writes off a lot of patient expenses (charity), So do many (if not all) other hospitals; Some raise the cost to paying customers to cover the non-paying, etc...

And, like the hospital spokesperson said, there are organizations, programs, and agencies that specifically target medical care.

For instance, Shriners Childrens Hospitals are run by the Shrine branch of the Freemasons. They provide major medical care -- free of charge -- for any child, completely subsidized by the Shrine. An organization to which I choose to contribute because they took a child, on my recommendation to a clown at a circus, and performed several major surgeries to correct a debilitating genetic defect. They also provided rehabilitation and physical therapy afterward.

If you give the government the power to take more of my money so they can mismanage health care -- like they already do with Medicare and Medicaid -- then I won't have as much to donate to the Shriners who are doing real work at no one's expense other than those who voluntarily choose to support it.

In a similar vein, a lot has been said (maybe not on this board but, I know, by President Obama) about Insurance Companies making exorbitant profits only to deny care when it is most needed.

Well, guess what; the average profit margin for an American health insurance company, these days, is 4%. Not that exorbitant, if you ask me.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600/profits.bmp

Also, I bet you can't guess which insurer is the bigger "denier (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf)" of medical claims, these days, either. Bingo! Government-run Medicare.

And, you want reform? I say you free up the insurance industry to compete for profits and encourage charity to organizations like Shriners and that hospital in which Ms. Canfield gratefully found herself.

[Wild Cobra]

Yoni...

I brought up similar facts when Exxon had their record profits. Libtards just don't care about the facts. They have an agenda.

[Yonivore]

Uh, that's EXACTLY the problem. People without health insurance often receive medical care anyway, and hospitals EAT THE COST. Which in turn makes the hospitals charge more for their services, which causes health insurance companies to charge the rest of us with health insurance more in premiums.

Get it now?
I get it. I'd rather private industry handle the economics of health care instead of an inefficient federal government with the built-in bureaucratic costs, waste, and fraud.

Charity is a private affair.

[Yonivore]

Would you like to argue that the health care bill is unconstitutional? If so, would you also like to make the argument that Social Security, welfare, and the like are unconstitutional?

If that is the case, I would love for you to explain how they are currently still in existence. With them being, you know, unconstitutional.
We have a (and have had) power-hungry Congress(es) and an ignorant electorate.

[Yonivore]

No shit.

What is more basic to life than food and shelter, but neither of there are a guaranteed right!
We do have "food insurance." They call it by various names. W.I.C, A.F.D.C, Welfare, Food Stamps, Lone Star Card...etc...

My same arguments apply there, as well. Private, commercial enterprises could better provide charity than can a behemoth federal government.

Oh, and shelter; I give you Section 8 housing.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, and shelter; I give you Section 8 housing.
Oh yes...

Section 8 housing, where the waiting list is 2 years here in Oregon.

Will health care be that long for a waiting list?

[Yonivore]

Oh yes...

Section 8 housing, where the waiting list is 2 years here in Oregon.
And, where legitimate home-owners can watch their property values drop like Dennis Kucinich's mouth on Obama's cock.


Will health care be that long for a waiting list?
Probably.

[Wild Cobra]

And, where legitimate home-owners can watch their property values drop like Dennis Kucinich's mouth on Obama's cock.

Still, section 8 housing isn't considered a right. Not everyone qualifies for it. It most often goes to single mothers. Single fathers be damned.

[Yonivore]

Still, section 8 housing isn't considered a right. Not everyone qualifies for it. It most often goes to single mothers. Single fathers be damned.
That's another thing that bothers me about this whole "medical-care-is-a-right" nonsense...other than, of course, no one having the "right" to the fruits of someone else's labor.

Rights can't be means-tested.

It's a right for everyone or it's not a right at all.

[Wild Cobra]

That's another thing that bothers me about this whole "medical-care-is-a-right" nonsense...other than, of course, no one having the "right" to the fruits of someone else's labor.

Rights can't be means-tested.

It's a right for everyone or it's not a right at all.
Absolutely.

[LnGrrrR]

As far as SS, and welfare. The constitution states that taxes are to be enforced to support an army or militia. Welfare, SS, and other programs are not enumerated in there. FDR was the man who openly tried to subvert the constitution by packing the court, and was the man who passed SS. Thanks for proving my point.



So, do you think welfare is unconstitutional or not?

[LnGrrrR]

We have a (and have had) power-hungry Congress(es) and an ignorant electorate.

Fair enough. :) I ask only to hear an actual answer. If people believe that welfare/social security, etc etc, SHOULD be unconstitutional if the laws were read properly, that's an argument with merit. I just like to have it out in the open.

[boutons_deux]

rights are whatever citizens decide are rights.

There's no such as inalienable, God-given rights. pure myth.