Experts predict ObamaCare wil lbe overturned

[Norman Bernstein]

According to a survey. They didn't think this, BEFORE the oral arguments.

Experts Predict Court Will Rule Against Health Care Mandate

Chris Moody: "A new insider survey of 58 legal experts conducted after the oral arguments concluded found that most predict that the court will strike down the so-called individual mandate, a central provision within the law requiring that every American purchase a government-approved form of health insurance. The same expert survey was conducted before the hearings began, which found the opposite: Most thought the law would be upheld."

Those of you who think this will be a good thing will rejoice. Of course, the consequences might not be felt by you.... unless you lose your job, that is.

Aside from 30 million people losing thier health care coverage, people with pre-existing conditions unable to obtain any coverage, at any price, and so on, you'll still be PAYING through the nose. How much? Read this to find out:

While we all wait to see whether the Supreme Court will overturn decades of established precedent by gutting Congress's power under the Commerce Clause so that it can overturn the Affordable Health Care Act, it's worth taking a moment to remember how health care is paid for now.

The controversial part of the Affordable Care Act (call it "Obamacare" if you want, but just remember that before it was Obamacare it was "Romneycare") is the individual mandate. That's the part of the law that charges an additional tax to anyone who does not have insurance. You get a choice: buy insurance, or pay a tax. For people who can't afford insurance, enough subsidies will be given so that they can afford it. But middle class people who don't want to buy health insurance will be penalized by paying this tax. It's true; and it's certainly understandable why it's controversial.

But what happens right now to middle-class people who don't want to buy health insurance? Most of them get away with it, because they're healthy. But every year some percentage of them get a serious illness, or get hit by a car, or fall off a ladder. Remarkably, these people -- your friends and neighbors -- don't stay at home and die, wishing all the while they had bought health insurance. Instead, they go to their local emergency room. There, they get treated, and are sent home with a $100,000 or $300,000 or $1,000,000 invoice. They declare bankruptcy, bilk their creditors, and stiff the hospital.

Who pays for that? You do. You pay for it in higher taxes to pay for hospital bailouts, higher insurance premiums, and higher hospital charges.

Don't like it? Here are your options: (1) Stick with our current system in which $56 billion in medical care was provided to the uninsured in 2008, resulting in higher taxes, insurance bills, and hospital charges. (2) Obama(Romney)care. (3) Have emergency rooms stop treating the uninsured. This would mean repealing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which has required emergency rooms to treat all comers since 1986, when it was passed with great bipartisan support. Such a repeal would leave uninsured people to bleed to death, curable diseases to go undiagnosed, and babies to die in their mothers' wombs for want of medical care. The L.A. Times recently ran an interesting article detailing this colorful history of of EMTALA.

Obama(Romney)care is starting to look pretty good to me. We'll find out soon if the Roberts Court agrees.

[Paul Pless]

Its not a very good law. I'm not gonna say we 'deserve' better, but I will definitely say that we as a nation need better.

[RonW]

This is great news, Hopefully it will be a 7 to 2 getting rid of this piece of anti-constitutional garbage.........

[Norman Bernstein]

Its not a very good law. I'm not gonna say we 'deserve' better, but I will definitely say that we as a nation need better.

We do, but it's overwhelmingly better than nothing.... and 'nothing' is what the GOP advocates.

[John Smith]

The experts didn't think the Supreme Court would hear Gore v Bush.

First thing we need to remember is those issues before the Court are not currently in place. The Court can still decide the mandate thing is a tax and it cannot be appealed until after it is in place. The other thing before the court is the changing of Medicaid rules.


The problem with this court, and what makes it hard to predict, is that is seems to make decisions that are not based on constitutional grounds. Gore v Bush was a stretch as to what they based their decision on, and the concept that corporations or organizatons enjoy free speech is NOT in the constitution. The "inalienable rights" that were mentioned in the DOI, and were put forth in the Bill of Rights apply to individuals.

If the Court rules against the mandate and/or the Medicaid changes, there will be no immediate impact, in spite of all the hype.

I'm trying to figure out who is pushing hardest for and against the mandate. My guess, and it's just a guess, is the insurance industry wants the mandate.

I'm also trying to imagine, if the mandate is knocked down, what happens in the public when rates go up and people who have insurance today because of Obamacare lose that insurance.

Long term there may be an interesting battle between Obama and the court. He did, in a State of the Union, chastize the Court for Citizens United. This election season will prove he was correct.

[Paul Pless]

We do, but it's overwhelmingly better than nothing....

I disagree.

[ljb5]

Oddly, Republicans are now openly talking about which parts of it they want to preserve.

Coverage for children to age 26, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps have proven to be very popular among consumers.

Everyone knew they would be, of course, but conservatives (some even on this forum) have argued from the begininng that those cannot work without the individual mandate.

Now, Republicans are saying they want to keep those, without the individual mandate.

I don't know if that's feasible. If it is, it just proves that Republicans were wrong all along and that Obamacare was effective at bringing about positive change. Even if struck down, if we keep some of the benefits, that's a step in the right direction that would not have come without the law.

If it's not feasible, it just means Republicans are writing promises they can't keep -- they know they can't keep and they have no intention of keeping. Must be an election year.

Despite what you think about Obamacare, it combines both responsibility and benefits. Any real solution will need both.

The Republicans keep oscillating between promising benefits without responsibility, or no benefit at all.

[Norman Bernstein]

I disagree.

Agreement or disagreement will obviously depend on where a person stands, with respect to the 8-ball.

The anti-ObamaCare forces consist of people who perceive themselves in front of the 8-ball, not behind it......

....but it won't take much to change someone's mind. The loss of a job (with the attendant loss of health care coverage), combined with either a serious pre-existing condition, or some medical adversity which bankrupts them, will change minds rather quickly. Nobody without a job, and with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt, is going to be glad that their 'freedom' was preserved by overturning ObamaCare.

And some of these people will be the very same ones who have criticized it from day one.

[RonW]

Coverage for children to age 26

Now is that a oxymoron statement or what........

[Paul Pless]

Nobody without a job, and with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt, is going to be glad that their 'freedom' was preserved by overturning ObamaCare.

You know these folks will still have to pay for their insurance coverage. As a matter of fact they will be mandated to do so, and at what cost?

[Kaa]

....but it won't take much to change someone's mind.

Norman, you seem to have a deep conviction, repeated often, that most people would quickly sacrifice their ideals and principles for personal economic gain. I find this conviction strange and unusual -- mind sharing how did you acquire it?

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

You know these folks will still have to pay for their insurance coverage. As a matter of fact they will be mandated to do so, and at what cost?

At a subsidized cost, if they are too poor to afford it on their own. This is simply a fact of life; medical care isn't free, for ANYONE, but we don't deny it to poor people.... as things stand right now, we still provide it, in an 'emergent' situation, and pay $56 BILLION dollars per year for it.... and by 'we', I mean 'You and I'.

[Paul Pless]

Coverage for children to age 26

Now is that a oxymoron statement or what........

Exactly!

Never has it been hard for this age group to get insurance anyway. This is one of the more ridiculous arguments liberals like ljb5 and John Smith make in support of the Affordable Health Care Act, that children will be able to stay on their parents insurance, but in reality its this demographic that insurance companies want the most to offset older health care consumers.

[ljb5]

I'm guessing Paul enjoys insurance coverage through his wife's plan.

That means the individual mandate has no direct effect on him, so he's arguing more from an academic standpoint than one of genuine interest.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, you seem to have a deep conviction, repeated often, that most people would quickly sacrifice their ideals and principles for personal economic gain. I find this conviction strange and unusual -- mind sharing how did you acquire it?

I am utterly astounded that you would even ASK such a question. If you can't figure this out, then nothing I say could possibly have any meaning to you, whatsoever.

However, I can at least say this: people will do what they need to do, to survive, at the fringes of sustainability.... and ideals and principles, while a good thing, fade into irrelevance when faced with sickness and death. In another thread, we find people applauding the idea of a father, killing a rapist molesting his 5 year old daughter.... did the father not hold to the ideals and principles of law and order? Or did those principles and ideals simply dissapear when his child was being abused?

If you don't think there's a difference between a desperate need for healthcare, and 'personal economic gain', then I certainly can't help you.

[ljb5]

Never has it been hard for this age group to get insurance anyway. This is one of the more ridiculous arguments liberals like ljb5 and John Smith make in support of the Affordable Health Care Act, that children will be able to stay on their parents insurance, but in reality its this demographic that insurance companies want the most to offset older health care consumers.

According to a recent report, (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ung-adults.php), about 3,100,000 young people are now insured specifically because of this provision.

I don't know if it was easy or hard for them to get insurance before.... but the facts seem to indicate that they didn't until this part of the law came into effect.

[Norman Bernstein]

Never has it been hard for this age group to get insurance anyway. This is one of the more ridiculous arguments liberals like ljb5 and John Smith make in support of the Affordable Health Care Act, that children will be able to stay on their parents insurance, but in reality its this demographic that insurance companies want the most to offset older health care consumers.

Tell it to the recent college grad who can't get a job, and therefore can't afford health care. In case you haven't noticed, we have high unemployment, and the percentage of college grads getting jobs with health care is low.

[Paul Pless]

I'm guessing Paul enjoys insurance coverage through his wife's plan.

I've been self employed for twenty years. I did go onto my wife's plan last year. I continue to administer the health insurance plan for my employees, which I have done so for nineteen of the twenty years that I have been in business.

[ljb5]

Norman, you seem to have a deep conviction, repeated often, that most people would quickly sacrifice their ideals and principles for personal economic gain. I find this conviction strange and unusual -- mind sharing how did you acquire it?

Kaa

I think the facts clearly indicate that many people simply don't have these principles.

Check out the sad story of Ron Paul's campaign manager, Kent Snyder, who died of pneumonia several years ago.

He didn't have insurance. He knew damn well he didn't have insurance.... and yet still, he ran up $400,000 in medical bills (which he couldn't pay).

If he had any principles, he wouldn't have accepted treatment that he knew he couldn't pay for.

You cannot claim to take a "principled" stance against insurance while simultaneoulsy accepting treatment you can't pay for.

[Gerarddm]

SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL.


Jeesh.

[Paul Pless]

SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL.


Jeesh.

We agree. Its the only prudent path forward.

[RonW]

SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL.

We don't agree........Liberty and freedom for all...you decide, not a govermental politician that is paid by a corporate insurance company that requires you to buy their product through a mandate....

[Kaa]

If you can't figure this out, then nothing I say could possibly have any meaning to you, whatsoever.

That is certainly a possibility... :-D

However, I can at least say this: people will do what they need to do, to survive, at the fringes of sustainability.... and ideals and principles, while a good thing, fade into irrelevance when faced with sickness and death.

Norman, you're a white upper-middle-class Massachussets liberal who wouldn't know what a fringe of sustainability is if it bit you on the ass.

And ideals and principles do NOT fade into irrelevance when you are facing hard choices. In fact, they become more important. They are what makes humans humans. The observation that you do not understand this is part of the reason why I am asking the question.

If you don't think there's a difference between a desperate need for healthcare, and 'personal economic gain', then I certainly can't help you.

I've seen you make the argument ("if only you stood to lose from this, you'd change your mind") many, many times. With respect to taxes, with respect to elections, with respect to health care, with respect to everything under the sun. That's why I called this a deep conviction -- it's a recurring, consistent theme in your postings.

Kaa

[Kaa]

I think the facts clearly indicate that many people simply don't have these principles.

Which "these" principles do you have in mind?

If he had any principles, he wouldn't have accepted treatment that he knew he couldn't pay for.

You cannot claim to take a "principled" stance against insurance while simultaneoulsy accepting treatment you can't pay for.

I am confused. Which principles -- be specific -- do you think he used to have and he sacrificed for personal gain? Note, by the way, "he used to have" and NOT "I think he should have had".

Kaa

[TomF]

... not a govermental politician that is paid by a corporate insurance company that requires you to buy their product through a mandate....

Single payer isn't what you described here. And there are a bunch of examples which include both single payer and private provision for those who'd prefer to exercise their "liberty" to pay for it directly rather than through taxes instead. Look around at half a dozen of your allies, and see.

What you'd not be at liberty to do, is free-ride.

[Kaa]

Single payer isn't what you described here.

But Obamacare is.

Kaa

[RonW]

What you'd not be at liberty to do, is free-ride.

There are no free rides, we all pay the consequences for our actions in a free society.
Your statement is a tired and worn out socialist argument that if one does not participate in the latest socialist program then they are wanting a free ride or free lunch.....not so.....

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, you're a white upper-middle-class Massachussets liberal who wouldn't know what a fringe of sustainability is if it bit you on the ass.

Yes, that's right.... and you're a white upper-middle-class conservative who probably hasn't personally experienced the fringes of sustainability, either.... but the difference between us is that I care about those people, and NOT in an ideological way.

And ideals and principles do NOT fade into irrelevance when you are facing hard choices. In fact, they become more important. They are what makes humans humans. The observation that you do not understand this is part of the reason why I am asking the question.

Get back to me when you're on the fringes of sustainability, and tell me what you would NOT do, to assure your survival, or the survival of your family.

I've seen you make the argument ("if only you stood to lose from this, you'd change your mind") many, many times. With respect to taxes, with respect to elections, with respect to health care, with respect to everything under the sun. That's why I called this a deep conviction -- it's a recurring, consistent theme in your postings.

You're right... absolutely right. There will always be winners and losers in society.... but what makes us human is just how much we care for the interests of the losers.

[TomF]

There are no free rides, we all pay the consequences for our actions in a free society.
Your statement is a tired and worn out socialist argument that if one does not participate in the latest socialist program then they are wanting a free ride or free lunch.....not so.....

No, my statement is the observation that in a system which will not deny services, without either tax-supported single payer or an individual mandate, that people who choose not to take out insurance and cannot pay otherwise are "free riders." They receive services paid for by somebody else.

That's typically an accusation made by some groups against poor folks who can't pay for emergency care, but get it at their local hospital anyway. It's also true, though, of instances like the one ljb mentioned above.

[Kaa]

Yes, that's right.... and you're a white upper-middle-class conservative who probably hasn't personally experienced the fringes of sustainability, either.... but the difference between us is that I care about those people, and NOT in an ideological way.

You have any evidence for either of these two claims, other than your imagination..?

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

You have any evidence for either of these two claims, other than your imagination..?

Just about as much as you have, for YOUR claim:

Norman, you're a white upper-middle-class Massachussets liberal who wouldn't know what a fringe of sustainability is if it bit you on the ass.

[ccmanuals]

ba boom!!

[Peerie Maa]

There are no free rides, we all pay the consequences for our actions in a free society.
Your statement is a tired and worn out socialist argument that if one does not participate in the latest socialist program then they are wanting a free ride or free lunch.....not so.....

I assume then that you are more than happy to subsidise these:

But what happens right now to middle-class people who don't want to buy health insurance? Most of them get away with it, because they're healthy. But every year some percentage of them get a serious illness, or get hit by a car, or fall off a ladder. Remarkably, these people -- your friends and neighbors -- don't stay at home and die, wishing all the while they had bought health insurance. Instead, they go to their local emergency room. There, they get treated, and are sent home with a $100,000 or $300,000 or $1,000,000 invoice. They declare bankruptcy, bilk their creditors, and stiff the hospital.

Who pays for that? You do. You pay for it in higher taxes to pay for hospital bailouts, higher insurance premiums, and higher hospital charges.

Don't like it? Here are your options: (1) Stick with our current system in which $56 billion in medical care was provided to the uninsured in 2008, resulting in higher taxes, insurance bills, and hospital charges. (2) Obama(Romney)care. (3) Have emergency rooms stop treating the uninsured. This would mean repealing the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which has required emergency rooms to treat all comers since 1986, when it was passed with great bipartisan support. Such a repeal would leave uninsured people to bleed to death, curable diseases to go undiagnosed, and babies to die in their mothers' wombs for want of medical care. The L.A. Times recently ran an interesting article detailing this colorful history of of EMTALA.

freeloaders in support of your freedom to pay higher taxes than you otherwise would be charged?

[RonW]

Peerie Maa -

I assume then that you are more than happy to subsidise these:

You assume wrong, because you are not from here or do you understand the way america use to operate...

Doctors use to be required to donate 1/3 of their practice to help the poor, in return the other 2/3 rd's of their patients pay slightly higher fees, and the doctors were rewarded by a nice income ..Not so after the government got in and started subsidizing, just as they did with college education which drove the price to the point that no one, as they used to be able to do work they way through college.
You want to screw something up, get the government involved in subsidizing it and taxing the people to support the subsidization.....

[Norman Bernstein]

Doctors use to be required to donate 1/3 of their practice to help the poor....

In what parallel universe was THIS ever any kind of law?

[Peerie Maa]

Peerie Maa -

You assume wrong, because you are not from here or do you understand the way america use to operate...

Doctors use to be required to donate 1/3 of their practice to help the poor, in return the other 2/3 rd's of their patients pay slightly higher fees, and the doctors were rewarded by a nice income ..Not so after the government got in and started subsidizing, just as they did with college education which drove the price to the point that no one, as they used to be able to do work they way through college.
You want to screw something up, get the government involved in subsidizing it and taxing the people to support the subsidization.....

Is this:

a doctor? If that is a doctor then fair enough. If as I suspect you were not discussing one of those, then what is the relevance of your post?

[RonW]

Norm ---------

In what parallel universe was THIS ever any kind of law?

HIPPOCRATIC OATH ..

[Norman Bernstein]

Norm ---------

HIPPOCRATIC OATH ..

Hmmmm... it ain't any kind of 'law', and NOWHERE in any of the three versions of the oath is there any such provision:

Original

Greek Wikisource has original text related to this article: Ἱπποκράτειος ὅρκος

Original, translated into English:^[4]

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

[edit] Classic

Classic translation into English:^[5]

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art – if they desire to learn it – without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else.
I will apply dietic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.
Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.
What I may see or hear in the course of treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honoured with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

In the 1870s, many American medical schools chose to abandon the Hippocratic Oath as part of graduation ceremonies, usually substituting a version modified to something considered more politically and medically correct, or an alternate pledge like the Oath of Maimonides.
The Hippocratic Oath has been updated by the Declaration of Geneva. In the United Kingdom, the General Medical Council provides clear modern guidance in the form of its Duties of a Doctor^[6] and Good Medical Practice^[7] statements.
[edit] Modern version

A widely used modern version of the traditional oath was penned in 1964 by Dr. Louis Lasagna, former Principal of the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences and Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University:^[8]

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

[ljb5]

I am confused. Which principles -- be specific -- do you think he used to have and he sacrificed for personal gain? Note, by the way, "he used to have" and NOT "I think he should have had".

Kaa

I thought it was obvious.

On the one hand, he is espoused the principle that people ought to be free from the requirement to have health insurance.

On the other hand, he accepted health care knowing full well that he couldn't pay for it.

If he truly had this principle and stood by it, he would have refused treatment on the grounds that he hadn't provided for it, couldn't pay for it and didn't intend to pay for it.

It doesn't seem that complicated to me: Paying for health care and receiving health care are not independent. They are intrinsically linked. You can't say you're in favor of one but opposed to the other. That's not principled, it's greedy and self-serving.

[TomF]

I somehow doubt that any physician has the capacity to foot the bill for the newer chemo drugs for a third of their cancer patients, no matter how generous he/she is.

I'm all for donations and voluntary service. I'm aware of many health providers who'd do that, even in this litigious age ... and many other people in other lines of work who are as generous. But relying on generosity, however extensive, doesn't keep people from falling through the cracks. Legislation comes closer.

[ljb5]

In what parallel universe was THIS ever any kind of law?

If that law ever existed, it seems like it would be pretty easy to call it a "mandate" and "government interference in the private sector" and "socialism"

But I don't think it ever existed, so never mind.

[Norman Bernstein]

If that law ever existed, it seems like it would be pretty easy to call it a "mandate" and "government interference in the private sector" and "socialism"

But I don't think it ever existed, so never mind.

*lol*

I don't know where RonW picked up this little piece of absurdity.... had it actually been true, it might have been convenient for him

[Kaa]

On the one hand, he is espoused the principle that people ought to be free from the requirement to have health insurance.

On the other hand, he accepted health care knowing full well that he couldn't pay for it.

If he truly had this principle and stood by it, he would have refused treatment on the grounds that he hadn't provided for it, couldn't pay for it and didn't intend to pay for it.

You seem to have major problems with logic.

"People ought to be free from the requirement to have health insurance" is a very different principle from "People should not accept medical treatment they can't pay for".

Might I also remind you that, say, 10 years ago nobody thought that the lack of a requirement to have health insurance was a major moral issue :-)

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

You"People ought to be free from the requirement to have health insurance" is a very different principle from "People should not accept medical treatment they can't pay for".

I'm going to hazard a guess: I suspect that most people here who are strongly opposed to ObamaCare, and especially, the mandate to have health isurance, already have it, via their work, or their spouses' job, or they are covered by Medicare.

Thier objection, then, is ideological....some rather diffuse and amorphous objection to the 'coercion' to carry insurance, that they already carry.

But the facts is the facts: millions who don't have insurance will almost inevitably end up being cared for by the taxpayers at large... and those who object to ObamaCare are seemingly NOT objecting to paying the tab for them.

The practical difference, to them, is irrelevant, since they are already covered.... but the 'principle' appears to be the important issue. I just don't know what to make of it, since they don't seem to object to the 'principle' that they will pay, anway.... in tax subsidies to doctors and hospitals for uncompensated care.

But there are also at least a few who object to ObamaCare, and who DON'T have insurance.... and at least some of them couldn't withstand a major medical crisis, economically.

I don't think any of them will volunteer to die on the street from a treatable medical crisis, for the sake of their principles, however.

[ljb5]

You seem to have major problems with logic.

"People ought to be free from the requirement to have health insurance" is a very different principle from "People should not accept medical treatment they can't pay for".

You're the one having a problem with logic.

Having health insurance (or some manner to pay for health care) is intrinsically linked to accepting health care.

They are two parts of the same transaction, just like eating in a restaurant and paying your bill. The two go together like action and consequence.

Might I also remind you that, say, 10 years ago nobody thought that the lack of a requirement to have health insurance was a major moral issue :-)

The requirement to have health insurance is only one of several possible ways to address the need to pay and the need to provide care. Ten years ago, we may not have arrived at this particular solution, but we did recognize that we needed to arrive at some solution.

Although we have long allowed freeloaders on the system, this has been generally recognized as unfair (which is another term for immoral) and that we need to create a system where responsibility and benefits are married. (i.e., the transaction is balanced between recipient and provider).

This is why most of us (I suspect you too) actually have health insurance and intend to pay for it. Most people without health insurance wish they did have it.

The number of people without health insurance who have no desire for it, seems to be fairly small (and not represented on this forum.) Those people can be divided into two groups:

(1) those who would refuse health care because they know they haven't paid for it and don't intend to pay for it. These people may be honest and principled, but they also tend to be dead.

(2) those who would accept health care knowing they can't or won't pay for it. These people are freeloaders, which I don't think is a "principle"

Kent Snyder, Ron Paul's late campaign manager falls into the second group. An unprincipled freeloader.

[Norman Bernstein]

(1) those who would refuse health care because they know they haven't paid for it and don't intend to pay for it. These people may be honest and principled, but they also tend to be dead.

(2) those who would accept health care knowing they can't or won't pay for it. These people are freeloaders, which I don't think is a "principle"

I'll take a wild guess... there aren't too many people in the first category

[Kaa]

You're the one having a problem with logic.

Having health insurance (or some manner to pay for health care) is intrinsically linked to accepting health care.

They are two parts of the same transaction, just like eating in a restaurant and paying your bill. The two go together like action and consequence.

Um, no, I am sorry to say I disagree. This is true neither legally (see the EMTALA bill referenced in this thread) nor morally, at least in what I'd consider to be a reasonable system of morality. You are confusing morals and economics.

The requirement to have health insurance is only one of several possible ways to address the need to pay and the need to provide care.

Correct, which is one of the reasons why the part of your post above makes no sense.

Although we have long allowed freeloaders on the system, this has been generally recognized as unfair (which is another term for immoral) and that we need to create a system where responsibility and benefits are married. (i.e., the transaction is balanced between recipient and provider).

In a single-payer system anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a freeloader. A housewife? freeloader! A family with a dozen kids? freeloaders! An elderly immigrant? freeloader!

Most people without health insurance wish they did have it.

That sentence is meaningless without specifying price. Most people wish they'd have health insurance while somebody else is paying for it.

Kaa

[ljb5]

Um, no, I am sorry to say I disagree. This is true neither legally (see the EMTALA bill referenced in this thread) nor morally, at least in what I'd consider to be a resonable system of morality. You are confusing morals and economics.

You appear to be suffering from the common misconception that EMTALA provides free care. This is not true.

EMTALA not provide care for free, nor provide any form of payment, nor alleviate the patient of the responsibility to pay. EMTALA says that the hospital must provide care. It does not say that the patient need not pay. The patient will receive a bill for the services provided. If the patient is unable to pay, they may have some options for charity or reduced rate, etc.... or, they may get a negative mark on their credit score or go bankrupt.

In a great many cases, of course, the patient does escape without paying... but that is not the same as saying the services were provided without intent to receive payment.

In a single-payer system anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a freeloader. A housewife? freeloader! A family with a dozen kids? freeloaders! An elderly immigrant? freeloader!

Perhaps... but at least in those cases we are honest about who is a freeloader and why.

I tend to be more forgiving of freeloaders who are unable to pay, rather than those who just don't feel like it.

Kent Snyder, for example, was a gainfully employed man. If he was able to pay for his treatment, he should have. If he was unable to pay, he should have been honest with himself (and us) about his means and signed up for free care like a common welfare queen.

One thing I can't abide is someone who thinks they're better than those who seek charity, argues against others seeking it... and then accepts it for himself. That's not principled.

Most people wish they'd have health insurance while somebody else is paying for it.

That's why Obamacare requires people to get their own health insurance. It marries the benefit of having health insurance with the responsibility of paying for it.

It's not for freeloaders, it's for people to provide for themselves.

[Kaa]

You appear to be suffering from the common misconception that EMTALA provides free care.

You are mistaken. I am asserting that EMTALA requires doctors to provide care (and so, presumably, implies that patients accept it) without considering the ability to pay. This has nothing to do with what happens to the medical bills afterwards.

Perhaps... but at least in those cases we are honest about who is a freeloader and why.

LOL. So *that* is the great advantage of single-payer with respect to free-loading? :-D

Kaa

[John of Phoenix]

This has nothing to do with what happens to the medical bills afterwards.

What does happen?