Health-Care Myths

[CopperCanyonResident]

Like the Three Stooges - stupid, but funny!

[josh]

Hold on Al...dont abandon the argument. You used the preamble to support your point and I turned it around and made the same argument to support my point. You cherry picked "general welfare" and I cherry picked "Libery". All I ask is that you recognize that using the preamble to make a point about govt forced insurance is not a valid argument. No need to try and rehash your same old tired healthcare points with me. Stick to the comment at hand please.

Not a valid argument? Why? Because it can be interpreted in different ways? Isn't that often the case? Isn't that why we need courts? My point was that what it means is decided by the Supreme Court. You have your opinion and have mine but it's the SC's opinion that counts.

Then there is the power to regulate commerce... but again, I'm sure we'll disagree as to what exactly that means and how far it goes... again why the court will decide.

You were asked to point to the part of the Constitution that granted govt the right to impose HC. You answered with the "preamble". I pointed out that using that line of reasoning, the preamble also supports an opposite view. When I made the point, you then responded along the lines that "it doesnt matter since the SC decides what it does and does not mean". So if that is how you feel, then why in the world would you use the preable of the constitution to make your point?!! Sheesh...this is what drives people crazy with your arguments. You change multipel times within the same thread. This isnt so much a HC discussion as it is a discussion about reasoning.

[Common Sense Al]

You were asked to point to the part of the Constitution that granted govt the right to impose HC. You answered with the "preamble". I pointed out that using that line of reasoning, the preamble also supports an opposite view. When I made the point, you then responded along the lines that "it doesnt matter since the SC decides what it does and does not mean". So if that is how you feel, then why in the world would you use the preable of the constitution to make your point?!! Sheesh...this is what drives people crazy with your arguments. You change multipel times within the same thread. This isnt so much a HC discussion as it is a discussion about reasoning.

Again, I think you are missing my point but I'll repeat it. So many things are "debatable" and can be interpreted in different ways, that's why we need some type of authority to determine what it means and the SC is that authority. What is unreasonable about that?

When I said whatever it is that you think I said "it doesn't matter", I was referring to our interpretations not mattering to whether it is or is not Constitutional as determined by "the authority" on the matter. Basically, I really did not want to spend more time arguing about it as it is unlikely to do any good because I don't think neither of us would change our opinions. As you know, some courts have rejected Obamacare and others have upheld it... it's a matter of interpretation.

Now, you never answered my question. You don't want the gov't to force people to buy healthcare, so, by logic & reasoning, I would assume you are not for the gov't forcing ERs to give free medical care to people who can't pay. Is that correct? Because otherwise there would be a discrepancy in your logic & reasoning. And if you are not for forced treatment at ERs, then don't you think that's a bit cruel, especially since you are a Christian? And if you are for forced treatment, then isn't that illogical since you are not for forced health insurance? Shouldn't both be forced or both be optional to make logical sense?

[JKTex]

Hold on Al...dont abandon the argument. You used the preamble to support your point and I turned it around and made the same argument to support my point. You cherry picked "general welfare" and I cherry picked "Libery". All I ask is that you recognize that using the preamble to make a point about govt forced insurance is not a valid argument. No need to try and rehash your same old tired healthcare points with me. Stick to the comment at hand please.

Not a valid argument? Why? Because it can be interpreted in different ways? Isn't that often the case? Isn't that why we need courts? My point was that what it means is decided by the Supreme Court. You have your opinion and have mine but it's the SC's opinion that counts.

Then there is the power to regulate commerce... but again, I'm sure we'll disagree as to what exactly that means and how far it goes... again why the court will decide.

This:

Two thoughts: the preamble has no binding power. It does not enumerate anything.

And this: I'll be lazy and do a cut and paste.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

[josh]

You were asked to point to the part of the Constitution that granted govt the right to impose HC. You answered with the "preamble". I pointed out that using that line of reasoning, the preamble also supports an opposite view. When I made the point, you then responded along the lines that "it doesnt matter since the SC decides what it does and does not mean". So if that is how you feel, then why in the world would you use the preable of the constitution to make your point?!! Sheesh...this is what drives people crazy with your arguments. You change multipel times within the same thread. This isnt so much a HC discussion as it is a discussion about reasoning.

Again, I think you are missing my point but I'll repeat it. So many things are "debatable" and can be interpreted in different ways, that's why we need some type of authority to determine what it means and the SC is that authority. What is unreasonable about that?

When I said whatever it is that you think I said "it doesn't matter", I was referring to our interpretations not mattering to whether it is or is not Constitutional as determined by "the authority" on the matter. Basically, I really did not want to spend more time arguing about it as it is unlikely to do any good because I don't think neither of us would change our opinions. As you know, some courts have rejected Obamacare and others have upheld it... it's a matter of interpretation.

Now, you never answered my question. You don't want the gov't to force people to buy healthcare, so, by logic & reasoning, I would assume you are not for the gov't forcing ERs to give free medical care to people who can't pay. Is that correct? Because otherwise there would be a discrepancy in your logic & reasoning. And if you are not for forced treatment at ERs, then don't you think that's a bit cruel, especially since you are a Christian? And if you are for forced treatment, then isn't that illogical since you are not for forced health insurance? Shouldn't both be forced or both be optional to make logical sense?

Your question conflates two completely different concepts. You cannot equate being forced to buy an insurance product that will help you "when / if" you require care (and oh by the way, you may wish to just pay cash when / if you need care), with a situation in which care is required right aware lest the person die. Emergency care is a clear act of compassion. Forcing insurance is not an act of compassion. So these two events are not even close.

[Common Sense Al]

Your question conflates two completely different concepts. You cannot equate being forced to buy an insurance product that will help you "when / if" you require care (and oh by the way, you may wish to just pay cash when / if you need care), with a situation in which care is required right aware lest the person die. Emergency care is a clear act of compassion. Forcing insurance is not an act of compassion. So these two events are not even close.

I think they are very closely related.

I agree that emergency care is an act of compassion... so the answer is YES, you are for the gov't FORCING ER's to treat people. But explain to me your justification why it's OK for the gov't to FORCE treatment ("stabilizing care")? Is it because it's compassionate that makes it OK for the gov't to force it? Also, what part of the Constitution would you say makes it OK for the federal gov't to force treatment (the law was passed in 1986)?

Sorry, I don't understand why you be OK for forcing ER's to treat people but so against forcing people to buy health insurance, which could also certainly be considered an "act of compassion" because people do end up dying without it, and people without it often end up "forcing" their costs onto others without their choice - and that's not compassionate to those forced to bear other people's costs.

Looking forward to hearing your reasoning.

[JKTex]

Your question conflates two completely different concepts. You cannot equate being forced to buy an insurance product that will help you "when / if" you require care (and oh by the way, you may wish to just pay cash when / if you need care), with a situation in which care is required right aware lest the person die. Emergency care is a clear act of compassion. Forcing insurance is not an act of compassion. So these two events are not even close.

I think they are very closely related.

I agree that emergency care is an act of compassion... so the answer is YES, you are for the gov't FORCING ER's to treat people. But explain to me your justification why it's OK for the gov't to FORCE treatment ("stabilizing care")? Is it because it's compassionate that makes it OK for the gov't to force it? Also, what part of the Constitution would you say makes it OK for the federal gov't to force treatment (the law was passed in 1986)?

Sorry, I don't understand why you be OK for forcing ER's to treat people but so against forcing people to buy health insurance, which could also certainly be considered an "act of compassion" because people do end up dying without it, and people without it often end up "forcing" their costs onto others without their choice - and that's not compassionate to those forced to bear other people's costs.

Looking forward to hearing your reasoning.

We've come to this notion that we can't have health care without insurance to pay for it. It's been beaten into our brains that we're entitled to insurance. In fact, if people stop and think, they'll realize it's just as easy to pay for it out of their pocket, like they do for just about every other thing we buy. Service or good provided, we pay for it.

We don't have to create a massive blood sucking system to complicate paying for a service.

So no, it's not the same. A person can make the decision whether they will or will not get health care, and pay for it. The cost, is another issue, and that requires deprogramming us and taking away the complex insurance system.

Actually, most people could save money by paying the for heath care out of pocket rather than paying for insurance. I know last year, out health care costs were way up, and when I looked at what we pay for insurance and what the increased cost of care was, we still would have a lot spent less money paying out of pocket, if the out of pocket prices were the same as the negotiated fees the insurance company gets. I would have much rather paid for catastrophic care insurance and just paid the Dr's as we went. We've just built this massive burden of a system that makes doing the logical thing more difficult.

It's hard I know, but getting it out of our heads that we're entitled, that we're accountable for ourselves and that because someone else has more I should get some of it, would change this country and put us back on track.

[Common Sense Al]

We've come to this notion that we can't have health care without insurance to pay for it. It's been beaten into our brains that we're entitled to insurance. In fact, if people stop and think, they'll realize it's just as easy to pay for it out of their pocket, like they do for just about every other thing we buy. Service or good provided, we pay for it.

Sure, as long as nothing major ever happens, but chances are that something will hit you one of these days and then will you be able to pay your bill?

Not to mention the fact that it's virtually impossible to shop around for prices for anything other than the basics, assuming you even have the luxury of shopping around. Most people aren't in the mood to shop around when they need care right away or still in shock from a diagnosis. It's amazing to me how many people think shopping for major surgery or treatment is like shopping for a big screen TV.

if the out of pocket prices were the same as the negotiated fees the insurance company gets.

Another major issue - if you don't have insurance, you pay the "rip-off" rate unless you want to 'beg' for a lower price, which they don't have to give you. And if you have anything somewhat major done, you'll be begging a lot of doctors and companies since each one will send you a bill. Getting rid of health insurance won't spare you from all the ridiculous billing & paperwork.

I would have much rather paid for catastrophic care insurance and just paid the Dr's as we went. We've just built this massive burden of a system that makes doing the logical thing more difficult.

That's what I basically have, catastrophic care... which is fine if one can pay for the basics. A lot of people don't even have a few K$ laying around to pay for the basics. It could be that they're irresponsible, but it could also be for other reasons.

It's hard I know, but getting it out of our heads that we're entitled, that we're accountable for ourselves and that because someone else has more I should get some of it, would change this country and put us back on track.

Had to add a little spin there with 'because someone else has more I should get some of it'.

It is about being accountable to ourselves, but we have to live in a system where we can be accountable to ourselves, that means having access to health care (and often that means having health insurance unless you wealthy). Many people would get health insurance and be responsible, if they could, but the system locks them out, either by denial or by jacking up their rates sky-high (because they can or because of medical history) or simply by the ridiculous cost of healthcare in this country.

[neighbor]

The discussion about the Constitution is good. More Americans should engage in it. The biggest thing about health care and the Constitution is that welfare (including health care) is the responsibility of States. Not the federal government. Read (and understand) the Constitution... ALL of it...

[JKTex]

Read (and understand) the Constitution... ALL of it...

Oh now, that would turn the world upside down and cause panic and fear and confusion! And not just with Politicians either!

[Common Sense Al]

Thanks to ObamaCare...

New site lets consumers monitor health insurance rate hikes

Great idea... plus forcing insurance companies to rebate money to consumers if not enough is spent on actual healthcare. This will make it harder for insurance companies to take advantage of their position, especially with those who have little or no power, like individuals.

[JKTex]

I like that.

I think the companies I've paid for life insurance need to rebate 100% to me now, because I haven't used any at all.

I also think the grocery store ought to rebate back anything I buy and don't use before it's too old.

Auto companies ought to be forced to rebate a portion of the cost of a vehicle if major parts, like rear seats, beds of pick ups, DVD systems etc. aren't used, or prorate if they're not used much.

I could go on and on!

If rates are competitive, we pay them. If we don't have claims, it would be a selling point if the insurer offered a partial rebate if it's not used.

The Government has no business telling a business how much it can charge and whether it needs to provide X amount of service or product life or rebate part of the cost back. We agree to pay a certain amount for a certain product or service in return. It's how free markets work. If the Government would pull it's head out of more of our business, things would be much better for all of us. Even those that want someone else (the Government) doing things and thinking for you.

[Common Sense Al]

The Government has no business telling a business how much it can charge and whether it needs to provide X amount of service or product life or rebate part of the cost back.

I think I'll have to agree with you... I don't want the gov't to have to set regulations for health insurance companies either... so I would get rid of them all and go single payer.

But since we're not to that point yet, regulation is needed.

And your analogies don't make any sense. It seems like you don't understand what the rebates are for and how they work.

[falcon999]

I like that.

I think the companies I've paid for life insurance need to rebate 100% to me now, because I haven't used any at all.

I also think the grocery store ought to rebate back anything I buy and don't use before it's too old.

Auto companies ought to be forced to rebate a portion of the cost of a vehicle if major parts, like rear seats, beds of pick ups, DVD systems etc. aren't used, or prorate if they're not used much.

I could go on and on!

If rates are competitive, we pay them. If we don't have claims, it would be a selling point if the insurer offered a partial rebate if it's not used.

The Government has no business telling a business how much it can charge and whether it needs to provide X amount of service or product life or rebate part of the cost back. We agree to pay a certain amount for a certain product or service in return. It's how free markets work. If the Government would pull it's head out of more of our business, things would be much better for all of us. Even those that want someone else (the Government) doing things and thinking for you.

in general i'm in agreement of a lack of government regulation but what happens if a company has so much money and there isn't much competition in the market, then a company could drop it's price until a competitor goes out of business. This was actually done in the airline market. And then of course the price goes back up.

some form of regulation could be helpful to spur competition in these cases, but you need to have equal footing for all. If a company in china for example doesn't have to compete then they might be able to get the us company to go out of business and then raise prices.

How would you regulate that?

[Common Sense Al]

Some people still wonder why healthcare is so expensive... I was watching some TV tonight and it seemed like every other commercial must have been for a health insurance company, a pharmaceutical drug, or a hospital. Is there any other country where so much $$$ is spent on advertising healthcare insurance companies, drugs, and hospitals? Somehow I doubt it.