0
Gravitymaster

Will Obamacare be Ruled to be Constitutional?

Recommended Posts

I can only hope for it to be ruled unconstitutional however, my version of common sense gets plowed under by DC so often I have to steel myself for the probability that it will stay the same. [:/]

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The question isn't whether you want it to pass. The question is will it pass?



If the Heritage Health Care Plan (aka The 1990 GOP Plan/Romneycare/Obamacare) is ruled unconstitutional then the only solution left is Universal Health Care.

The GOP RyanPlan to privatize medicare will also be deemed to unconstitutional... :S

bizzaro world.


Hugs & Cheers!
Shc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free Americans can only hope. But I must admit I'm surprised at all the free thinkers that support a cradle to grave government.

In the end, if it is up held, I hope I can negotiate a free home gym at tax payers’ expense to help keep me and the family healthy. Maybe we can also outlaw Skydiving because we all know how dangerous it is and the High Cost of care because some 36,000 dumb asses want the freedom to throw themselves out of airplanes.

On top of that make it LAW that all individuals shall carry Life Insurance with a minimum of $250,000.00 coverage with the Government being the beneficiary so that they cover your final expenses and what is left over goes to pay down the dept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see something very interesting. Solicitor General Donald Virelli made a comment that I predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

According to the article, "Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs." Virelli responded:
Quote

"I think it's completely different," said Verrilli, arguing that when it comes to health care, those who don't buy it and get sick can get emergency room care, an expensive option effectively subsidized by their insurance-buying fellow citizens.



Why do people go to the emergency room? Because of EMTALA, which was passed in 1986. I wrote about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

Basically, the reason why the need for socialized healthcare exists, says the Solicitor General, is because too many people are getting a free ride. Of course, this free ride has only existed for 25 years! Congress mandated that ERs treat everyone without regard to ability to pay. Therefore, people go into ERs for free care.

The government's solution is not to repeal EMTALA. The government's solution is to force all people to buy a private product. the road to socialized healthcare is paved with creating lousy policies that the government must then fix.

I've perused quite a few amicus briefs and EMTALA isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering if I'm the only person thinking of this.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Free Americans can only hope. But I must admit I'm surprised at all the free thinkers that support a cradle to grave government.

In the end, if it is up held, I hope I can negotiate a free home gym at tax payers’ expense to help keep me and the family healthy. Maybe we can also outlaw Skydiving because we all know how dangerous it is and the High Cost of care because some 36,000 dumb asses want the freedom to throw themselves out of airplanes.

On top of that make it LAW that all individuals shall carry Life Insurance with a minimum of $250,000.00 coverage with the Government being the beneficiary so that they cover your final expenses and what is left over goes to pay down the dept.




I love how people keep advocating "freedom" into this.

What is your alternative to the health care system? Are you honestly advocating for a system where people with pre-existing conditions are unable to get any care? ...where there are teams that are dedicated of finding a way to get you out of the insurance when you are sick? The teams dedicated to this aren't there because the insurance are "greedy and evil"; they are there because it becomes a necessity to filter these clients out to make the system work (some of which is clearly written in their annual Financial Statement Reports).


Freedom freedom, let the sick freely die.


Hugs & Cheers!
Shc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EMTALA isn't the only reason people go to the ER.

I know a guy who is a doctor at an ER. He told me how homeless guys come in with a fake complaint just to get a free room to sleep off his hang overs.

Since there is a complaint, he has to admit them and run an average of $25,000 worth of tests on them to make sure they are OK before releasing them. Those costs are passed on to us. This is a regular occurrence where he works.

The lawyers say he has to run these tests though, or he could face a malpractice law suit and possibly loose his license, even if something happened that had nothing to do with the original complaint. There is an ambulance chaser out there that would take the case. He has to treat the lawyers first instead of the symptoms.

There are a lot of things wrong with our heath care system other than tort reform. I could go on. None of it is addressed in the "Affordable health care act". If anything, it makes it all more expensive, as we have seen with the rising costs.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know a guy who is a doctor at an ER. He told me how homeless guys come in with a fake complaint just to get a free room to sleep off his hang overs.

Since there is a complaint, he has to admit them and run an average of $25,000 worth of tests on them to make sure they are OK before releasing them. Those costs are passed on to us. This is a regular occurrence where he works.

The lawyers say he has to run these tests though, or he could face a malpractice law suit and possibly loose his license, even if something happened that had nothing to do with the original complaint. There is an ambulance chaser out there that would take the case. He has to treat the lawyers first instead of the symptoms.

There are a lot of things wrong with our heath care system other than tort reform. I could go on. None of it is addressed in the "Affordable health care act". If anything, it makes it all more expensive, as we have seen with the rising costs.



Your anecdote seems a little off. Wouldn't every homeless person do this eevry night if this was true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I know a guy who is a doctor at an ER. He told me how homeless guys come in with a fake complaint just to get a free room to sleep off his hang overs.

Since there is a complaint, he has to admit them and run an average of $25,000 worth of tests on them to make sure they are OK before releasing them. Those costs are passed on to us. This is a regular occurrence where he works.

The lawyers say he has to run these tests though, or he could face a malpractice law suit and possibly loose his license, even if something happened that had nothing to do with the original complaint. There is an ambulance chaser out there that would take the case. He has to treat the lawyers first instead of the symptoms.

There are a lot of things wrong with our heath care system other than tort reform. I could go on. None of it is addressed in the "Affordable health care act". If anything, it makes it all more expensive, as we have seen with the rising costs.



Your anecdote seems a little off. Wouldn't every homeless person do this eevry night if this was true?



Not every homeless person has though of this, also, not every homeless person knows what symptoms to complain of.

Other factors, when said homeless person is extremely intoxicated on what ever, which is closer, homeless shelter or hospital?

And sometimes he just wants to hang with his homey's at the underpass. Still more weed to smoke.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Your anecdote seems a little off. Wouldn't every homeless person do this eevry night if this was true?



not all homeless want a room in a shelter, and the ER isn't the best place to sleep in peace. But SF also has trouble with severe alcoholics who joyride often on the ambulances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

EMTALA isn't the only reason people go to the ER.

I know a guy who is a doctor at an ER. He told me how homeless guys come in with a fake complaint just to get a free room to sleep off his hang overs.

Since there is a complaint, he has to admit them and run an average of $25,000 worth of tests on them to make sure they are OK before releasing them. Those costs are passed on to us. This is a regular occurrence where he works.

The lawyers say he has to run these tests though, or he could face a malpractice law suit and possibly loose his license, even if something happened that had nothing to do with the original complaint. There is an ambulance chaser out there that would take the case. He has to treat the lawyers first instead of the symptoms.

There are a lot of things wrong with our heath care system other than tort reform. I could go on. None of it is addressed in the "Affordable health care act". If anything, it makes it all more expensive, as we have seen with the rising costs.



Sounds like he needs to order some really painful, invasive tests to cure them of coming in.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What is your alternative to the health care system? Are you honestly advocating for a system where people with pre-existing conditions are unable to get any care?



Herein lies the dispute! Unable to get any care. Oh, quite frequently the can get care. But the issue becomes whether or not they can get care that others will pay into.

This is a political discussion. It picks winners and losers! What you are advocating is a system that decides that they young and healthy must pay more so that the unhealthy may pay less. It costs the same, but the costs are spread out among others.

Thus, someone like me pays more so that someone else may pay less. In a grand scale sociological thing it may be considered to be a sound policy. But you are seeking to pick winners (the uninsurable) and losers (the readily insurable).

We have another system where the young and healthy pay into it to cover the old and infirm. It's called Medicare, and have you taken a look at its viability lately? How about Social Security?

So what you are arguing for is a situation that is not only unfair to a large number of individuals who, by virtue of their lifestyles (and, yes, by even accident of birth) are to carry the load for those who by virtue of their lifestyles (and yes, by even accident of birth) have expensive issues.

Do you know WHY so many young and healthy are dropping out of insurance? Because they see that they are getting hosed and paying far more for what they get in return. You policy is, "You cannot back out."

So I understand from a command economy sense that the heavy hand of government is required to ensure that the 40 year-old obese male with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy can afford his treatments. But all that does is make my yearly physical more expensive.

Have you zero concern for the interests of those who take care of themselves?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your anecdote seems a little off. Wouldn't every homeless person do this eevry night if this was true?



No, not all of them. But there are two homeless guys in Fresno who do. One guy had 710 ambulance rides in 2011. Yes, you read that correctly - more than twice a day. Another guy had 653 in 2011.

More than 1,300 ambulance rides for two homeless men in 1 year - it was almost 2% of all ambulance calls in Fresno in 2011. So not everybody does it.

But the system is set up for this abuse. The ambulances cannot turn them away. Once they are at the ER they have to be examined. There is simply no way around it. And these two clowns cost hundreds of thousands last year.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I spent 31 years responding to calls like this. It is not only the homeless.
Elderly folks would call us all of the time, because they were lonely.
Uninsured citizens would call us all of the time for the common cold or flu.
Illegal immigrants called us all of the time for simple things such as childbirth.
Some wanted us to show up and then go to the pharmacy to get them medicine.
Some thought an ambulance ride for constipation would get them seen sooner at the ER.

The US health care system has so many flaws in it, it will never be corrected. Emergency medicine and countywide free healthcare costs the taxpayers billions.

signed,
31 years on the fire truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as we, as a society, are going to say that all men are created equal, we're going to associate certain things with the "dignity due every human." Right now that pendulum is swung way over in one direction -- someone getting 500 ambulance rides in a year is ridiculous, but there isn't a mechanism at which we cut off and say "nope, that person no longer gets care -- he's still a person."

At other times, it's swung too far in the other direction. Enslaving people, or poorhouses as run in the18th century, are too far in the other direction.

But it's going to be painful. Because, all of a sudden, all those people who currently have no power except to tax the system (because it treats everyone equally) will be unequal there, too.

We can't afford what we have now.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As long as we, as a society, are going to say that all men are created equal, we're going to associate certain things with the "dignity due every human."



Indeed. Nevertheless, I think that the issue is one where the use of the term "right" is shown in its folly. Compare, if you will, the right to speech. Or the right to practice a religion. Or to remain silent. With the exception of the right to a jury, the rights given cause no duty upon others. Others need not pay the price for a person's exercise of right.

When a person has a "right" to healthcare, it necessarily costs another person. If the homeless person wanted to spend the whole day immersed in prayer, it wouldn't cost anybody anything. But when the homeless guy gets his "right" to medical care, it creates a cost to others, which means it is not a "right" at all.

I understand the sociological argument. I also understand the individual dignity of humans. Nevertheless, there is a definite cost/benefit analysis to be done. These are individual choices, of course.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket, I like the fact that you express your ideas, but you keep thinking this argument in such an abstract theoretical manner.

For example, I remember in another topic you claimed U.S healthcare is the best because it was "more expensive". "Because it costs more, then it should have better quality". Theoretically, it should. In reality, it just isin't.

The old Healthcare system in which you are advocating is the same system that has brought at least 35%-50% of the foreclosures in 2005-2008.

"Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). We also examined objective indicia of medical disruptions in the previous two years, including those respondents paying more than $2,000 of medical bills out of pocket (37%), those losing two or more weeks of work because of injury or illness (30%), those currently disabled and unable to work (8%), and those who used their home equity to pay medical bills (13%). Altogether, seven in ten respondents (69%) reported at least one of these factors."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1416947

It is the same system that has consistently been rate d lower quality internationally.

There are real-life experiments that are happening right now and that are WORKING.
Massachusetts' health care is working (aka RomneyCare) (and if you want me to, I'l send you the link again).


There are studies done that answers this very question you ask:
Quote

Do you know WHY so many young and healthy are dropping out of insurance? Because they see that they are getting hosed and paying far more for what they get in return.



Why do young people get out? The more young gets out of healthcare, the more it would cost because only the ones that needed are in the pool. The more expensive it becomes, the more young gets out...thus a non-ending vicious cycle. ACA works to be a backstop against this.

New Hampshire wanted to prevent insurance from denying pre-existing conditions. What happens? The rate shot up and the young got out- this is documented and a real-life example.

What do insurance companies have to do to defend themselves? Kick the sick ones out! (not necessarily because they are evil, but because they have to for the good of their business) -> Look at Aetna's defenses (they are not groundless).


This whole notion of "taking away individual freedom", "USA debt would explode" are just buzzwords found in hypothetical articles claiming to know the truth when its nothing more than Austrian Economics claiming since 2008 that U.S Interest Rate will explode any time soon (oh did I mention the U.S Rate is still at an historical low). Its fine to have predictions, but at least base it on something more concrete.





Hugs & Cheers!
Shc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

lawrocket, I like the fact that you express your ideas, but you keep thinking this argument in such an abstract theoretical manner.



He's a lawyer and the topic is constitutionality. Of course it's going to be abstract and theoretical. Not emotional. As it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I see something very interesting. Solicitor General Donald Virelli made a comment that I predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

According to the article, "Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs." Virelli responded:

Quote

"I think it's completely different," said Verrilli, arguing that when it comes to health care, those who don't buy it and get sick can get emergency room care, an expensive option effectively subsidized by their insurance-buying fellow citizens.



Why do people go to the emergency room? Because of EMTALA, which was passed in 1986. I wrote about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

Basically, the reason why the need for socialized healthcare exists, says the Solicitor General, is because too many people are getting a free ride. Of course, this free ride has only existed for 25 years! Congress mandated that ERs treat everyone without regard to ability to pay. Therefore, people go into ERs for free care.

The government's solution is not to repeal EMTALA. The government's solution is to force all people to buy a private product. the road to socialized healthcare is paved with creating lousy policies that the government must then fix.

I've perused quite a few amicus briefs and EMTALA isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering if I'm the only person thinking of this.

Is that the right link? I get a news story about the day's testimony, and didn't see any discussion of EMTALA.

Anyway, I recall past threads where you made your dislike for EMTALA clear. I asked you a question then, which you didn't respond to, and I'll ask it again.

A former student of mine worked as an EMT for a local ambulance service after he graduated. One time when he stopped by my office, I asked him how common is it that they transport accident/heart attack/other seriously injured patients without making sure they had their wallet/purse with ID and insurance info. He said it was very common, at least 10% of such patients. In a violent car crash your wallet or purse can end up anywhere, and their concern is stabilizing the patient and transporting as quickly as possible. [I can testify to the car crash issue a bit, as I was once rear-ended by a logging truck, and although I was kept in place by my seat belt, I eventually found my cell phone, which had been in my pocket, underneath the rear seat of my Jeep.] Also when they arrive at a residence and find a patient in full cardiac arrest, they don't spend time searching the house for ID/insurance cards. A family member, or the police, can bring that along later.

So here is my question for you. How do you suggest an ER/trauma center should respond to a seriously ill or injured patient who is brought in without ID, insurance cards, a checkbook, or other proof that they will be able to pay? You seem to advocate a can't pay = no treatment ethic. Have I misunderstood? Anyway, in a situation where the patient needs immediate treatment to have a chance at survival, do you really believe they should withhold treatment until someone shows up with a checkbook or insurance info? Should someone who has paid for insurance diligently be allowed to die because their wallet is under a back seat in their wrecked car? Wouldn't that be a consequence of repealing EMTALA? Is your outrage at being taken advantage of by freeloaders so great that you'd push a system that would deny life-saving care to tens of thousands of people who in fact have paid for insurance? What do you think ERs/trauma centers should do in such a case?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

As long as we, as a society, are going to say that all men are created equal, we're going to associate certain things with the "dignity due every human."



Indeed. Nevertheless, I think that the issue is one where the use of the term "right" is shown in its folly. Compare, if you will, the right to speech. Or the right to practice a religion. Or to remain silent. With the exception of the right to a jury, the rights given cause no duty upon others. Others need not pay the price for a person's exercise of right.

When a person has a "right" to healthcare, it necessarily costs another person. If the homeless person wanted to spend the whole day immersed in prayer, it wouldn't cost anybody anything. But when the homeless guy gets his "right" to medical care, it creates a cost to others, which means it is not a "right" at all.

I understand the sociological argument. I also understand the individual dignity of humans. Nevertheless, there is a definite cost/benefit analysis to be done. These are individual choices, of course.

However, people also have a right to legal representation, and if they cannot afford such representation it is provided for them, and I pay for it despite the fact that I would not qualify for free legal representation myself. Nevertheless, I do not object to the principle of the thing, as a system of justice that put people on trial without any representation would not be justice at all. It would be an affront to my sense of our principles as a nation to have people railroaded into long prison sentences, or even the death penalty, because they weren't able to contend with the judicial system on their own. I can complain about particular details, such as spending over $3 million dollars on a single defendant, Brian Nichols, who murdered a judge and court reporter in front of a courtroom full of witnesses. But those details don't overwhelm the principle that trial without legal representation would be a farce. Some principles are worth paying for, just as some (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc) are worth fighting for.

What is your opinion of taxpayer funding for indigent defense?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0