Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 274

Thread: Republicans can't deal with medical care:

  1. #121 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,089
    Thanks
    697
    Thanked 951 Times in 847 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 42 Times in 38 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.
    Then go find one. They are out there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents.
    Better handled at the State level (and already is). The federal government has no authority to implement such a program according to the Constitution. They cannot do anything legally outside the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. Various States, however, have this already coded into their constitutions. If yours doesn't, see your local legislature about such an amendment and get the people of your State to vote for it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Regardless of whatever is or will be our nation’s medical policies, this policy would improve our nation’s economic and social condition.
    Socialism does not improve anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure.
    Private lawsuits already do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurer’s failure.
    A blanket proposal that fails to cover a lot of cases. What if the insurer specifies they won't cover a certain condition when you sign up with them. Are they still liable?

  2. #122 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    39,796
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 5,199 Times in 4,667 Posts
    Groans
    13
    Groaned 413 Times in 402 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    CFM, I suppose what both Rjhenn and Gonzomin are referring to is USA's prior and our current healthcare policies were and are in comparison to those of the world's all other industrial nations' healthcare policies, the most expensive per their nations' populations' persons, and per patient.

    Although USA's aggregate medical costs are the most expensive among industrial nations, The consequences due to many of those other nations' healthcare policies are superior to that of the USA; (i.e. other nations are all doing it at lesser cost and many of them are doing it better than what USA has or is now accomplishing).

    Respectfully, Supposn
    The policies prior to Obamacare worked perfectly fine for ME and MY FAMILY. Excellent coverage, low costs as part of the compensation package, and never a single problem having them pay, what few times it was actually used.

    As far as doing something well and at a low cost to ME, it was accomplishing plenty. Since it's not my responsibility to worry about others, what they had, or didn't have, and paid is none of my concern.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to CFM For This Post:

    Into the Night (06-10-2019)

  4. #123 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. ďan ounce of preventionĒ): Iím a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything thatís effectively a co-payment for whatís a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patientís condition. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Then go find one. They are out there.
    Into the Night, I'm a proponent of such a provision be a requirement of any medical insurance qualifying for the Affordable Care Act or the federal standards requirements of medical insurance within whatever federal policy may update or replace the federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
    ///////////////////
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Iím also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Better handled at the State level (and already is). The federal government has no authority to implement such a program according to the Constitution. They cannot do anything legally outside the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. Various States, however, have this already coded into their constitutions. If yours doesn't, see your local legislature about such an amendment and get the people of your State to vote for it.
    Into the Night, the same unconstitutional assertion was made in opposition to the federal minimum wage rate. If the Affordable Care Act were ever to be deemed as to be unconstitutional, both the concepts of federal minimum wage rate and a mandated acqiring of qualifying medical insurance would themselves remain constitutional. Republicanís dilemma is that a constitutional mandated medical insurance plan would be passed. The majority of USA voters want coverage with no penalty for previous conditions. Commercial insurance companies cannot make that happen without government subsidies. Federal funding of legal residentsí catastrophic medical costs reduces all (i.e. commercial, or nonprofitsí or governmentsí) insurance plans, but thatís not enough to enable non-government insurers with no federal subsidies offering adequate medical insurance policies at affordable prices with no penalties for pre-existing conditions.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  5. #124 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 1,408 Times in 1,016 Posts
    Groans
    489
    Groaned 411 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Then go find one. They are out there.

    Better handled at the State level (and already is). The federal government has no authority to implement such a program according to the Constitution. They cannot do anything legally outside the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. Various States, however, have this already coded into their constitutions. If yours doesn't, see your local legislature about such an amendment and get the people of your State to vote for it.

    Socialism does not improve anything.

    Private lawsuits already do that.

    A blanket proposal that fails to cover a lot of cases. What if the insurer specifies they won't cover a certain condition when you sign up with them. Are they still liable?
    The public welfare clause in the constitution, according to Supreme Court decisions, gives Congress the power to collect taxes and implement programs for the public good. So yes, a healthcare program is constitutional.

  6. #125 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Socialism does not improve anything.
    Into the Night, medical insurance is effectively substantially or entirely funded with every of the worldís major industrial nations, (including the USA); (; all of our basic medical insurance systems are, to a substantial extent if not entirely socialism. Iím an old man and I expect to see this trend in the USA to continue further within my lifetime.

    Medicare was enacted because commercial insurance enterprises cannot themselves provide adequate and affordable medical insurance for most elderly people.

    Basic medical insurance is among the products that cannot be provided in manners to our nationís public and economic best interests without substantial government regulation and intervention. Despite what you believe, almost, but not all products are or should best be created and distributed by pure competitive participants within a free enterprise market.
    Government providing some basic medical insurance is not equivalent to socialized medicine. United States healthcare providers outside of hospitals are almost entirely independent competitive enterprises and I expect they will remain so.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  7. #126 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    675
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 158 Times in 123 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    It appears the reason repukes cannot deal with medical care is that they are so far out bat sh!t crazy and full of horrible forms of cancerous diseases, they are terrified to find out the diagnosis of that type of karma effect.

  8. #127 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 33 Times in 28 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Iím also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition.

    The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical providerís grievous failure. An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurerís failure. ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Private lawsuits already do that.
    Into the Night, hospitals and other healthcare providers would not need to wait for a court settlement or decision before they were compensated. Remedial procedures and care on the patientsí behalves would not be delayed.
    //////////////////////////

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    A blanket proposal that fails to cover a lot of cases. What if the insurer specifies they won't cover a certain condition when you sign up with them. Are they still liable?
    Insurance qualified under the Affordable Care Act cannot choose not to cover some particular medical condition. They can choose not to cover some future unnecessary elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery; but even thatís not absolute. For example, repairs of the damage to fire victim or birth defects may be considered as grievous and requiring ďnecessaryĒ surgery.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  9. #128 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,089
    Thanks
    697
    Thanked 951 Times in 847 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 42 Times in 38 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Into the Night, I'm a proponent of such a provision be a requirement of any medical insurance qualifying for the Affordable Care Act or the federal standards requirements of medical insurance within whatever federal policy may update or replace the federal Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.
    Why do you wish the federal government to interfere with markets like this? They have no authority to do so. Price controls never work. They ALWAYS cause shortages.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Into the Night, the same unconstitutional assertion was made in opposition to the federal minimum wage rate.
    An argument, not an assertion. The argument is correct. The federal government has no authority to implement any form of price controls. Minimum wage laws are price controls. They never work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    If the Affordable Care Act were ever to be deemed as to be unconstitutional, both the concepts of federal minimum wage rate and a mandated acqiring of qualifying medical insurance would themselves remain constitutional.
    NONE of it is constitutional. The federal government does NOT have authority to require you to buy anything. They do NOT have the authority to implement price controls.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Republicanís dilemma is that a constitutional mandated medical insurance plan would be passed.
    I don't give a shit about Republicans or Democrats. I give a shit about the Constitution, and how far the federal government has deviated from it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    The majority of USA voters want coverage with no penalty for previous conditions.
    Then they can pressure their States to pass appropriate amendments to the Constitution, giving the federal government that authority. Until then, it is unconstitutional.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Commercial insurance companies cannot make that happen without government subsidies.
    WRONG. Commercial insurance companies made that happen when they first opened and there WERE no laws about medical insurance companies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Federal funding of legal residentsí catastrophic medical costs reduces all (i.e. commercial, or nonprofitsí or governmentsí) insurance plans,
    WRONG. That money from the federal government is NOT free. YOU pay for it, whether through federal taxation, through the costs of federal regulations, and through the devalued dollar from the federal government printing too many of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    but thatís not enough to enable non-government insurers with no federal subsidies offering adequate medical insurance policies at affordable prices with no penalties for pre-existing conditions.
    They do not need federal assistance to offer such insurance. They never did, and they still don't. It matters not. The federal government has no authority there.

  10. #129 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,089
    Thanks
    697
    Thanked 951 Times in 847 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 42 Times in 38 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    The public welfare clause in the constitution, according to Supreme Court decisions, gives Congress the power to collect taxes and implement programs for the public good. So yes, a healthcare program is constitutional.
    That is NOT a power or authority. It is a reason. It places a guiding limit on the powers and authorities the Constitution DOES give. Go read the Constitution of the United States of America.

    If the 'public welfare' clause is to be used as you suggest, why have a Constitution at all?

    No court has authority to change the Constitution. The federal government does NOT have authority to implement price controls on health care, or even to regulate it at all.

  11. #130 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ventura CA
    Posts
    61,398
    Thanks
    71,228
    Thanked 12,208 Times in 10,441 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 2,847 Times in 2,589 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. ďan ounce of preventionĒ): Iím a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything thatís effectively a co-payment for whatís a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patientís condition.

    Iím also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition.
    The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical providerís grievous failure. An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurerís failure.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    What a pile of low information word salad bile. It's OBVIOUS you don't know how insurance works.

    Do you know how Government managed plans work to keep costs down? By LIMITING care, services and R & D.
    Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.


    Eric Holder: ďIím still enjoying what Iím doing, thereís still work to be done,Ē Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy.Ē

  12. #131 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    5,089
    Thanks
    697
    Thanked 951 Times in 847 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 42 Times in 38 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Into the Night, medical insurance is effectively substantially or entirely funded with every of the world’s major industrial nations,
    That is their decision, according to their governments. The United States is not run by the consensus of other nations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    (including the USA);
    It is unconstitutional in the USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    all of our basic medical insurance systems are, to a substantial extent if not entirely socialism.
    Government subsidies and regulation of medical insurance is entirely socialism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    I’m an old man and I expect to see this trend in the USA to continue further within my lifetime.
    So do I. I also expect to see the misery that comes from it to become greater as a result. Fortunately, there IS a revolt over this forming here and there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Medicare was enacted because commercial insurance enterprises cannot themselves provide adequate and affordable medical insurance for most elderly people.
    Yes they can. They have already done so. Medicare itself does NOT provide adequate and affordable medical insurance AND it's very costly to you and me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Basic medical insurance is among the products that cannot be provided in manners to our nation’s public and economic best interests without substantial government regulation and intervention.
    WRONG. It has already happened in the past. The federal government has NO authority here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Despite what you believe,
    Not what I believe. It's history. You just choose to deny the history of free markets and desire to turn to and justify socialism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    almost, but not all products are or should best be created and distributed by pure competitive participants within a free enterprise market.
    They WERE created and distributed in free enterprise markets. It was the free market that created the health care system and health care insurance in the first place!
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    Government providing some basic medical insurance is not equivalent to socialized medicine.
    Correct. It is equivalent to socialized medical insurance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
    United States healthcare providers outside of hospitals are almost entirely independent competitive enterprises and I expect they will remain so.
    False equivalence. Health care is NOT health care insurance. You are moving the goalposts around.

  13. #132 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    3,280
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 1,408 Times in 1,016 Posts
    Groans
    489
    Groaned 411 Times in 379 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    That is NOT a power or authority. It is a reason. It places a guiding limit on the powers and authorities the Constitution DOES give. Go read the Constitution of the United States of America.

    If the 'public welfare' clause is to be used as you suggest, why have a Constitution at all?

    No court has authority to change the Constitution. The federal government does NOT have authority to implement price controls on health care, or even to regulate it at all.
    You make no sense. Hamilton backed the clause ,We do have a responsibility to the people. The Supremes have used the clause in many cases. That gives it more weight than just an appearance in the constitution.
    However, universal healthcare does not cost you money. it is half the cost of our medical care that leaves millions without and many more with substandard care. Universal care would take the cost of medical care out of companies hands. That would help their ability to compete across the globe. It would free them from record keeping and constant negotiations as prices go up over and over. It would give them money they could return to employees in higher wages.

  14. #133 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    39,796
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 5,199 Times in 4,667 Posts
    Groans
    13
    Groaned 413 Times in 402 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzomin View Post
    The public welfare clause in the constitution, according to Supreme Court decisions, gives Congress the power to collect taxes and implement programs for the public good. So yes, a healthcare program is constitutional.
    Taking from one that has in order to give to one that doesn't have does no one any good.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to CFM For This Post:

    Into the Night (06-10-2019)

  16. #134 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    39,796
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 5,199 Times in 4,667 Posts
    Groans
    13
    Groaned 413 Times in 402 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymccready View Post
    'Medical care' is a national security issue as well as a human right.

    To deny such is an emotional appeal.
    To claim such is emotional nonsense.

    Stop begging for someone else to fund you healthcare.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to CFM For This Post:

    Into the Night (06-10-2019)

  18. #135 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    39,796
    Thanks
    177
    Thanked 5,199 Times in 4,667 Posts
    Groans
    13
    Groaned 413 Times in 402 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adolf_Twitler View Post
    I sure would love to hear you argue your case before your county tax collectors, who tax you thousands every year for County Hospital expenses, along with your property taxes- to pay for all those hundreds of thousands of people who use your County Hospitals because they don't have insurance.

    Trust me dude- You are paying out the nose for people who are not insured now- as you are just overlooking it!
    There's an easy fix. Stop using tax money for the uninsured. If they can't pay, send you the bill. If you refuse to personally pay, let them go without.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to CFM For This Post:

    Into the Night (06-10-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Tip of the day: dont call the police if you need medical care
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-09-2013, 08:29 AM
  2. Advanced medical care in Cuba....
    By NOVA in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 02:07 PM
  3. Did someone say 'no rationed medical care'?
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 04-09-2010, 06:52 PM
  4. Medical clinics expanding care to the needy
    By Muslim Immigration in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2007, 10:55 PM
  5. stand tall for medical care for all
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 08-18-2007, 10:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •