ACA upheld

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

TALLAHASSEE --
Florida Gov. Rick Scott is saying Florida will do nothing to comply with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Scott recently said he would follow the law if it were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But he went on national television on Friday night and said Florida will not take any steps to help carry out the overhaul.

And you guys don't think ACA is a boon to the lawyers. .

I don't think the assholes of the world should dictate good social policy. Apparently you do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

And kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, when the law was like that it caused a whole lot of problems, so enlightened people (including St. Ronald Reagan, beloved patron saint of Republicans) decided that was a REALLY BAD IDEA. And they were right.

"We found that because of federal law, federal law requires that hospitals treat people whether or not they can pay. So someone (who) doesn’t have health insurance -- they can go to the hospital and get free care. And we found a growing number of people were dropping their insurance and going to the hospital if they got real sick." Mitt Romney, 2011

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed into law by St. Ronald Reagan, 1986

So you agree that the government encourages freeloading? I'm not getting a clear answer.

And yes, patient dumping was becoming a problem. Patient dumping was, um, getting rid of the freeloaders, right? And so what was a problem before has morphed changed into the massive problem because of the response to governmental solution.

Quote

so enlightened people

I'm glad you appreciate the religious aspect behind this. Those who agree are enlightened saints. Those who did not decide it was a really bad idea are ignorant sinners.

Well stated! You have gone from the argument of "freeloading bad" to "enlightenment means covering freeloaders." Which is my point. This system does not end freeloading. The ACA RATIFIES freeloading and enables it by establishing the funding of freeloaders.

I define freeloaders as people like Ms. Brown, the lead plaintiff, who could afford health insurance but chose to let others pay for her healthcare.

The poor aren't freeloaders, they are simply poor.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, when the law was like that it caused a whole lot of problems, so enlightened people (including St. Ronald Reagan, beloved patron saint of Republicans) decided that was a REALLY BAD IDEA. And they were right.

"We found that because of federal law, federal law requires that hospitals treat people whether or not they can pay. So someone (who) doesn’t have health insurance -- they can go to the hospital and get free care. And we found a growing number of people were dropping their insurance and going to the hospital if they got real sick." Mitt Romney, 2011

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed into law by St. Ronald Reagan, 1986

So you agree that the government encourages freeloading? I'm not getting a clear answer.

And yes, patient dumping was becoming a problem. Patient dumping was, um, getting rid of the freeloaders, right? And so what was a problem before has morphed changed into the massive problem because of the response to governmental solution.

Quote

so enlightened people

I'm glad you appreciate the religious aspect behind this. Those who agree are enlightened saints. Those who did not decide it was a really bad idea are ignorant sinners.

Well stated! You have gone from the argument of "freeloading bad" to "enlightenment means covering freeloaders." Which is my point. This system does not end freeloading. The ACA RATIFIES freeloading and enables it by establishing the funding of freeloaders.

I define freeloaders as people like Ms. Brown, the lead plaintiff, who could afford health insurance but chose to let others pay for her healthcare.

The poor aren't freeloaders, they are simply poor.

Even if your poster child declared bankruptcy to get out of paying the full amount they billed her, she likely still paid them more than they would have gotten from insurance and more than Medicare/Medicaid.

So your definition of a freeloader is one who does not pay for other's medical care portion, only their own. Considering that hospitals can't collect from the poor, only collect a portion from insurance companies and even less from Medicare/Medicaid, they try to make up the difference on those without insurance.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, when the law was like that it caused a whole lot of problems, so enlightened people (including St. Ronald Reagan, beloved patron saint of Republicans) decided that was a REALLY BAD IDEA. And they were right.

"We found that because of federal law, federal law requires that hospitals treat people whether or not they can pay. So someone (who) doesn’t have health insurance -- they can go to the hospital and get free care. And we found a growing number of people were dropping their insurance and going to the hospital if they got real sick." Mitt Romney, 2011

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed into law by St. Ronald Reagan, 1986

So you agree that the government encourages freeloading? I'm not getting a clear answer.

And yes, patient dumping was becoming a problem. Patient dumping was, um, getting rid of the freeloaders, right? And so what was a problem before has morphed changed into the massive problem because of the response to governmental solution.

Quote

so enlightened people

I'm glad you appreciate the religious aspect behind this. Those who agree are enlightened saints. Those who did not decide it was a really bad idea are ignorant sinners.

Well stated! You have gone from the argument of "freeloading bad" to "enlightenment means covering freeloaders." Which is my point. This system does not end freeloading. The ACA RATIFIES freeloading and enables it by establishing the funding of freeloaders.

I define freeloaders as people like Ms. Brown, the lead plaintiff, who could afford health insurance but chose to let others pay for her healthcare.

The poor aren't freeloaders, they are simply poor.

Even if your poster child declared bankruptcy to get out of paying the full amount they billed her, she likely still paid them more than they would have gotten from insurance and more than Medicare/Medicaid.

So your definition of a freeloader is one who does not pay for other's medical care portion, only their own. Considering that hospitals can't collect from the poor, only collect a portion from insurance companies and even less from Medicare/Medicaid, they try to make up the difference on those without insurance.

You go from an ASS-umption to fact in one paragraph.

I made very clear what my definition is. Ms. Brown IS a freeloader.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Quote

TALLAHASSEE --
Florida Gov. Rick Scott is saying Florida will do nothing to comply with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Scott recently said he would follow the law if it were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But he went on national television on Friday night and said Florida will not take any steps to help carry out the overhaul.

And you guys don't think ACA is a boon to the lawyers. .

I don't think the assholes of the world should dictate good social policy. Apparently you do.

Please define "asshole" in this sense.

How does that definition apply to me?

Why did you snip a major portion of my statement?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And kallend - what are your thoughts on my proposition that the government encourages freeloading? Wouldn't the problem be solved if we simply said, "We're not covering you any more?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, when the law was like that it caused a whole lot of problems, so enlightened people (including St. Ronald Reagan, beloved patron saint of Republicans) decided that was a REALLY BAD IDEA. And they were right.

"We found that because of federal law, federal law requires that hospitals treat people whether or not they can pay. So someone (who) doesn’t have health insurance -- they can go to the hospital and get free care. And we found a growing number of people were dropping their insurance and going to the hospital if they got real sick." Mitt Romney, 2011

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) signed into law by St. Ronald Reagan, 1986

So you agree that the government encourages freeloading? I'm not getting a clear answer.

And yes, patient dumping was becoming a problem. Patient dumping was, um, getting rid of the freeloaders, right? And so what was a problem before has morphed changed into the massive problem because of the response to governmental solution.

Quote

so enlightened people

I'm glad you appreciate the religious aspect behind this. Those who agree are enlightened saints. Those who did not decide it was a really bad idea are ignorant sinners.

Well stated! You have gone from the argument of "freeloading bad" to "enlightenment means covering freeloaders." Which is my point. This system does not end freeloading. The ACA RATIFIES freeloading and enables it by establishing the funding of freeloaders.

I define freeloaders as people like Ms. Brown, the lead plaintiff, who could afford health insurance but chose to let others pay for her healthcare.

The poor aren't freeloaders, they are simply poor.

Even if your poster child declared bankruptcy to get out of paying the full amount they billed her, she likely still paid them more than they would have gotten from insurance and more than Medicare/Medicaid.

So your definition of a freeloader is one who does not pay for other's medical care portion, only their own. Considering that hospitals can't collect from the poor, only collect a portion from insurance companies and even less from Medicare/Medicaid, they try to make up the difference on those without insurance.

You go from an ASS-umption to fact in one paragraph.

I made very clear what my definition is. Ms. Brown IS a freeloader.

Have you ever declared bankruptcy or know someone who has? It's not something that people do to just get out of paying bills. All assets minus a small portion for transportation and housing are split amongst their creditors.

This is the last step, in the meantime, they've likely paid most or all of the original balance owed but the majority of the money went to late fees and interest. Most of the time they aren't even paying the original creditor as they've sold the debt to a debt collection agency or agencies.

Someone who declares bankruptcy is not a freeloader. Not by any means.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[airdvr 200]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What you have to look at are not the 30% of the extreme right or the 30% of the extreme left, but the folks in the middle. I don't think the majority of them give a flying fuck what it's called by anyone.

well, when and if they start paying it, they will care. But it's still this futuristic notion as they keep extending the Bush tax cuts, so how much can it actually hurt, among as you say, voters that actually are up for grabs.

WHO gets to pay the tax? Not responsible folk who already have health insurance. It won't affect the vast majority.

It's a government program John. Why are you so naive to think it won't cost tons more than it was planned? Who will pay for that? Not the folks who don't pay income tax.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[lawrocket 3]

So you differnetiate freeloaders from freeriders? Okay. But doing so makes a value judgment of the motives versus the effect. I'm not interested in themotive for freeriding. I'm interested in the effect.

In the past, I have writteon on here about the sob stories of people who decided they didn't need insurance and ended up in trouble. Now they have a condition and cannot afford the treatement they got or cannot be insured because of a pre-existing condition. Those are certainly people looking for a free ride. They didn't want to pay for insurance but now they do. They gambled and lost.

And are still covered by the American people.

What if the system made it clear to people, "you're fucked if you expect others to cover you?" Would we see as many fundraisers for Skygod who lost a fight with on his new cross-braced canopy and spanking new rig? The one who was uninsured but spent $10k in new gear and jump tickets in the last three months?

Why no. I will not pay for your jumps. Because that's how I view it. Because nobody would say, "I don't have money because I paid for my health insurance. Please pay for my jumps!" Yes, I sound heartless and cold. But a person knows the risks, rolls the dice and sometimes comes up craps.

I posit that this doesn't happen nearly as frequently without a system that is designed to encourage people to free ride. And as we know, free riders don't consider their cost on the system. They are using other people's money and resources and using it on themselves. Why care about the cost?

I'd propose a system wherein medicine is a cash-based system. This dramatically decreases the bureaucracy and administrative cost. Insurance is available for catastrophic injuries. That means that people go to the doctor when treatment is needed and they make a cost/benefit analysis on their own. Demand goes down because people are aware of the cost. Price goes down because demand goes down and because the administrative cost is dramatically lessened by pay-on-site cash payment (and not the dozens of people needing to be paid through the chain of payment).

If you are looking for cebtralized control of a system, it's not the way to do it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

So you differnetiate freeloaders from freeriders? Okay. But doing so makes a value judgment of the motives versus the effect. I'm not interested in themotive for freeriding. I'm interested in the effect.

In the past, I have writteon on here about the sob stories of people who decided they didn't need insurance and ended up in trouble. Now they have a condition and cannot afford the treatement they got or cannot be insured because of a pre-existing condition. Those are certainly people looking for a free ride. They didn't want to pay for insurance but now they do. They gambled and lost.

And are still covered by the American people.

What if the system made it clear to people, "you're fucked if you expect others to cover you?" Would we see as many fundraisers for Skygod who lost a fight with on his new cross-braced canopy and spanking new rig? The one who was uninsured but spent $10k in new gear and jump tickets in the last three months?

Why no. I will not pay for your jumps. Because that's how I view it. Because nobody would say, "I don't have money because I paid for my health insurance. Please pay for my jumps!" Yes, I sound heartless and cold. But a person knows the risks, rolls the dice and sometimes comes up craps.

I posit that this doesn't happen nearly as frequently without a system that is designed to encourage people to free ride. And as we know, free riders don't consider their cost on the system. They are using other people's money and resources and using it on themselves. Why care about the cost?

I'd propose a system wherein medicine is a cash-based system. This dramatically decreases the bureaucracy and administrative cost. Insurance is available for catastrophic injuries. That means that people go to the doctor when treatment is needed and they make a cost/benefit analysis on their own. Demand goes down because people are aware of the cost. Price goes down because demand goes down and because the administrative cost is dramatically lessened by pay-on-site cash payment (and not the dozens of people needing to be paid through the chain of payment).

If you are looking for cebtralized control of a system, it's not the way to do it.

What you say makes perfect sense to me. It was the attitude of the parachutists back in the 60's. We were a cut above, so we thought, because we were risk takers that knew the score.

An old saying in the Tampa Sky Divers, "Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances."

Now trust funds and entitlement mentality have turned sport parachuting into skydiving where most believe they deserve a free ride.

I saw the change when it was no longer cool to log your jumps. Earned achievement lost value.

"Yeah, I got a 1000 jumps and did all that shit. Just give me D License."

So now they live on the DZ, getting free jumps for just about everything they do for and with the student or young jumper.

Then, they get sick or seriously hurt and, "Wah, the government won't take care of me. Wah, it's not fair."

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Take Your Medicine, America…
Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends this morning that nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

NPR had a piece over the weekend that stated of the current 30 million in need of healthcare, the new bill will only help 40% of them at best.
The rest will be freeloaders as some call them.

Now add in the states that are saying they will opt out on at least some portions.....

Leaves me with a lot of wondering what the impact to all of us may be.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

NPR had a piece over the weekend that stated of the current 30 million in need of healthcare, the new bill will only help 40% of them at best.
The rest will be freeloaders as some call them.

Now add in the states that are saying they will opt out on at least some portions.....

Leaves me with a lot of wondering what the impact to all of us may be.

It is a mess

It is a bad bill that has nothing to do with HC

It is about money. A new tax

A big one

The talking point of freeloaders is bs at best and in reality is dishonest

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

So you differnetiate freeloaders from freeriders? Okay. But doing so makes a value judgment of the motives versus the effect. I'm not interested in themotive for freeriding. I'm interested in the effect.

In the past, I have writteon on here about the sob stories of people who decided they didn't need insurance and ended up in trouble. Now they have a condition and cannot afford the treatement they got or cannot be insured because of a pre-existing condition. Those are certainly people looking for a free ride. They didn't want to pay for insurance but now they do. They gambled and lost.

And are still covered by the American people.

What if the system made it clear to people, "you're fucked if you expect others to cover you?" Would we see as many fundraisers for Skygod who lost a fight with on his new cross-braced canopy and spanking new rig? The one who was uninsured but spent $10k in new gear and jump tickets in the last three months?

Why no. I will not pay for your jumps. Because that's how I view it. Because nobody would say, "I don't have money because I paid for my health insurance. Please pay for my jumps!" Yes, I sound heartless and cold. But a person knows the risks, rolls the dice and sometimes comes up craps.

I posit that this doesn't happen nearly as frequently without a system that is designed to encourage people to free ride. And as we know, free riders don't consider their cost on the system. They are using other people's money and resources and using it on themselves. Why care about the cost?

I'd propose a system wherein medicine is a cash-based system. This dramatically decreases the bureaucracy and administrative cost. Insurance is available for catastrophic injuries. That means that people go to the doctor when treatment is needed and they make a cost/benefit analysis on their own. Demand goes down because people are aware of the cost. Price goes down because demand goes down and because the administrative cost is dramatically lessened by pay-on-site cash payment (and not the dozens of people needing to be paid through the chain of payment).

If you are looking for cebtralized control of a system, it's not the way to do it.

What you say makes perfect sense to me. It was the attitude of the parachutists back in the 60's. We were a cut above, so we thought, because we were risk takers that knew the score.

An old saying in the Tampa Sky Divers, "Ya pays your money and ya takes your chances."

Now trust funds and entitlement mentality have turned sport parachuting into skydiving where most believe they deserve a free ride.

I saw the change when it was no longer cool to log your jumps. Earned achievement lost value.

"Yeah, I got a 1000 jumps and did all that shit. Just give me D License."

So now they live on the DZ, getting free jumps for just about everything they do for and with the student or young jumper.

Then, they get sick or seriously hurt and, "Wah, the government won't take care of me. Wah, it's not fair."

The likelihood of EMTALA being repealed by either party is ZERO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

What"s puzzling about all of this is why the hospitals are unable to collect from these deadbeats. If I don't pay my bills, I will have a collection agency after me and eventually end up being sued and my wages garnished. If a deadbeat dad doesn't pay his child support, then the state can come in and revoke any professional licenses he may have and also his drivers license until it's paid. Why are hospitals having so much trouble collecting their money? Why is the government getting involved in assisting a private business in their accounts recievables? Doesn't Mary Brown have any assets?

[normiss 622]

You can't get blood from a turnip.

In a lot of cases, there is nothing to go after.
Ruining someone's credit that already has crap for credit accomplishes nothing.
These days it also seems a lot of cost comparisons are made as far as suing. My sister was sued years ago for a credit card debt that resulted in garnishments.
These days, the amount of that debt would be less than the cost of legal action.
In some states, they cannot take certain assets either.
Ever wonder why OJ moved to Florida after the civil suit???

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

The likelihood of EMTALA being repealed by either party is ZERO.

We have a DZO down here that believes it already has been repealed.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

"Participating hospitals".

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

It is a bad bill that has nothing to do with HC

It is about money. A new tax

A big one

SO TELL US HOW MUCH MORE TAX YOU WILL PAY!


In its most recent complete estimate, in March 2011, the Congressional Budget Office said the new health care law would actually reduce the federal budget deficit by $210 billion over the next 10 years. In the following decade, the law would continue to reduce deficits by about one-half of one percent of the nation's gross domestic product.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 622]

Depends on where you live.

Florida

Looks like it WILL cost states to implement.
Wonder where the funds will come from .....

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Depends on where you live.

Florida

Looks like it WILL cost states to implement.
Wonder where the funds will come from .....

The SC did say the states could opt out of the medicare portion and the fed could not use the threat of pulling money against them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

Then why not just have the gov't subsidize medical insurance for those who truely can't afford it? That's what they are going to do under this plan anyway. It what the gov't always does for people who can't manage to feed themselves, put a roof over their heads etc.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Then why not just have the gov't subsidize medical insurance for those who truely can't afford it? That's what they are going to do under this plan anyway. It what the gov't always does for people who can't manage to feed themselves, put a roof over their heads etc.

You could ask Mr. Etch-a Sketch Mitt Romney. His Romneycare is almost indistinguishable from ACA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why not just have the gov't subsidize medical insurance for those who truely can't afford it? That's what they are going to do under this plan anyway. It what the gov't always does for people who can't manage to feed themselves, put a roof over their heads etc.

You could ask Mr. Etch-a Sketch Mitt Romney. His Romneycare is almost indistinguishable from ACA.

More non-sequitor babble.

Glad to see you have transitioned from "Bush Lied" to "Romney is Mr. Etch-A-Sketch". I supposed we will have to put up with that for a least a few more months, eh?

[davjohns 1]

I haven't joined in this discussion until now, and still don't intend to take much of a stand...

2,000 pages of legislation? It's hard to believe it lays out a clear process whose effects can be predicted and debated. I'm pretty sure nobody here has read the document, so all debate is likely based on snippets from the document or (more likely) statements made by others (who are also unlikely to have read the document). Let's face it, how many of the legislators who voted on it actually read it? I'm guessing it is a round number (0).

What I know from the history of government is that it is likely to result in less freedom and more taxation. Each synopsis of the legislation that I have seen seems to support this general estimate.

It is possible this document finally solves a major problem in this country and equitably provides for all...but since it came from a body that can't balance a budget, can't pass a budget before execution, etc....it seems a long shot.

I'll take a wait and see approach, but I don't expect anything positive.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I hear you. I still question the motives for this legislation.