[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

From a cost containment standpoint, it simply makes no sense to honor terrorism suspects' civil rights instead of torturing them for information. That's no justification for ignoring the constitution.

Well given the proceedings at the Supreme Court clearly the Constitution is not being ignored. We'll know in June how it all shakes out on that question.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No different than how auto insurance currently works.

And it's a pretty retarded system as well. It is my view that in 2012 we are a unified country of "Americans" operating in a global economy. And there are areas where we sorely need to start acting like it as opposed to clinging to these antiquated 18th century notions of the US being some loosely federalized collection of "sovereign states".

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What the heck are you talking about? Even the most progressive plan has the government only paying premiums, not buying medical supplies, and the topic at hand doesn't even have it paying premiums.

When you said "Why don't they implement government health insurance at the state level" you were speaking in the hypothetical. I was simply responding in kind.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's an exercise. Clearly you can see the problems inherent in implementing this on the scale of 1 state amidst others, but you somehow are blind to those exact same problems when implemented on the scale of 1 country amidst others.

Not sure what other countries would have to do with a US government provided healthcare system? You lost me on that one.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

B. Because healthcare is so expensive and most providers demand full payment at the time services are rendered, most people carry insurance because otherwise it would be unaffordable.

The reliance on insurance has only made healthcare more expensive, not less, because the consumer is completely divorced from the actual price. People have been led to believe they need to carry insurance for routine healthcare, which is all just a ruse. People could also be convinced that they need to carry insurance to change the oil in their car and do routine maintenance, rather than just use it in the rare event of accidents- and lo and behold, you'd be here saying how we can't possibly do without auto insurance because oil changes and routine maintenance is too expensive. Of course it would be if were part of the same insane payment system- as would be food or anything else you're going to rely on insurance to pay for. It's not an efficient payment system for anything routine, only unlikely emergencies, and one day hopefully more people will wake up to that fact.

C. Emergency medical treatment is required by law nationwide even for the uninsured ... and those costs are shifted to those who are insured.

More logically, emergency medical treatment would be the ONLY thing one should need insurance for- then the cost would be much less, and we wouldn't even need to be having this debate.

A mandate about "broccoli", "housing", "food", or "clothing" may involve A ... but none of them involve B or C.

As already gone over, none of these things matter a hill of beans as to the question of the mandate being constitutional for the federal government or not. Constitutionality doesn't hinge around your item C- if anything, it'd be more likely to hinge around item A, which is why conceivably using the same seudo-logic, we could just as easily be talking about food shelter or clothing mandates.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It was the Justices the mentioned broccoli, and cell phones and burial insurance, because we're all going to die.

Ok fine. But who raised it doesn't address the point I raised. The consumption of broccoli ... while it's arguably in the "common good" ... is not cost prohibitive to the point where insurance is required in order for the vast majority of people to access it. Neither are cell phones. And while an argument can be made that people with no life insurance may end up with the cost of handling their remains shifted onto the state ... it simply isn't on the scale of what happens with people with no health insurance.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Which I think is going to happen if the SCOTUS overturns the individual mandate.

Doubtful. Recall the cheers from the crowd at the GOP Presidential debate when the moderator asked if a young, healthy person with no health insurance should be allowed to die if he was in an accident or became gravely ill? I think that was quite indicative of a much greater degree of concern on that side of the aisle for their ideology than the plight of the uninsured and their impact on the economy. If conservatives are gnashing their teeth over a private market based approach with their OWN IDEA of the "individual mandate" at its core ... surely they will scuttle any attempt implement a government run program at any level.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The reliance on insurance has only made healthcare more expensive, not less, because the consumer is completely divorced from the actual price. People have been led to believe they need to carry insurance for routine healthcare, which is all just a ruse. People could also be convinced that they need to carry insurance to change the oil in their car and do routine maintenance, rather than just use it in the rare event of accidents- and lo and behold, you'd be here saying how we can't possibly do without auto insurance because oil changes and routine maintenance is too expensive. Of course it would be if were part of the same insane payment system- as would be food or anything else you're going to rely on insurance to pay for. It's not an efficient payment system for anything routine, only unlikely emergencies, and one day hopefully more people will wake up to that fact.



More logically, emergency medical treatment would be the ONLY thing one should need insurance for- then the cost would be much less, and we wouldn't even need to be having this debate.

While I understand your point ... I would argue that what you refer to as "routine healthcare" is simply not the driver of the astronomical healthcare cost inflation we have been experiencing over the last several decades. Going to the doctor for a standard checkup is not what's causing this phenomenon. Whereas ending up in the emergency room with severe trauma ... or hospitalized with a severe illness or a heart attack ... or diagnosed with a chronic disease like cancer or diabetes most definitely is. My own nephew was hospitalized with pneumonia for a mere 2-3 days a few years back. Hospital bill was over 10K ... just like that! And his mother ... my sister ... who's worked as a nurse for decades simply couldn't afford the health insurance that would have paid for his care. So those costs are shifted to those who do have insurance ... which is partially why his treatment cost so much in the first place. And she's stuck with serious medical debt. And this is by no means an isolated situation. You'd be surprised at the number of healthcare workers who care for people who are insured when they need treatment ... but simply can't afford the insurance that would allow them to get treatment at the very same facilities they work in.

So after we all get done bickering about the ideological, the theoretical, and the hypothetical ... there's a fundamental reality that will remain. MILLIONS of people who have health insurance today because of the ACA will no longer if this legislation is overturned. And that's real talk right there.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well given the proceedings at the Supreme Court clearly the Constitution is not being ignored. We'll know in June how it all shakes out on that question.

Breaking the law knowingly is not better than breaking the law unknowningly. You know what I meant. The constitution is there for a reason, even if someone manages to convince the supreme court to look the other way, as has happened in the past.

And it's a pretty retarded system as well. It is my view that in 2012 we are a unified country of "Americans" operating in a global economy. And there are areas where we sorely need to start acting like it as opposed to clinging to these antiquated 18th century notions of the US being some loosely federalized collection of "sovereign states".

The "brave new world" argument could as easily be used to condone torturing terror suspects without trial. I reject that. If the "brave new world" was really that different, then enough people would be on board to pass a constitutional amendment. That is precisely what the amendment system was designed to address, changes in human condition due to modernity. If you can't muster the support for an amendment, then the constitution is protecting those people who disagree with you from being railroaded, and rightly so.

When you said "Why don't they implement government health insurance at the state level" you were speaking in the hypothetical. I was simply responding in kind.

I don't see what was hypothetical about it. I asked why they can't just obey the constitution. If that automatically puts me in the realm of hypotheticals, then god help us

Not sure what other countries would have to do with a US government provided healthcare system? You lost me on that one.

Here's a clue, what happens when a Mexican or Canadian gets injured or sick in Alabama?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So after we all get done bickering about the ideological, the theoretical, and the hypothetical ... there's a fundamental reality that will remain. MILLIONS of people who have health insurance today because of the ACA will no longer if this legislation is overturned.

I don't get it. If your sister couldn't afford insurance before, what will allow her to afford it once it's illegal not to have it? What changed?

How do you explain the fundamental reality that money doesn't grow on trees?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

(or face Obama's Death Panels?).

The second you tossed in the Death Panels the rest of your post lost all credibility.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it constitutional to require purchasing auto insurance?

1) Its State level law not national
2) Almost all mandatory insurance is for liability, damage you cause some one else in the operation of your car.
3) Driving is a privilege, you can take it or leave it. Medical treatment isn't so cut and dry. Leaving it generally = death or no productivity. And while some people will never drive a car in there life, every one will make use of medical treatment. Starts at birth.

Originally Posted by OAW 

The interesting thing about all of this for me is that if the Obama Administration had pushed for what the majority of the public actually wanted ... which was a single-payer system ... then this entire question would be moot. Unfortunately, the votes just weren't there in the Senate to do that because even though there was a filibuster-proof Democratic majority at the time ... there was not a filibuster-proof progressive Democratic majority. So I supported the President's approach of going for what could actually be accomplished and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. But given all the dust that's been kicked up by Republicans over what is at its core a GOP plan ... I'm starting to wonder if trying to appease them with a private sector oriented approach was good short-term tactics but bad long-term strategy? While I can't see the Supreme Court striking down the legislation in its entirety, I can see the conservative majority striking down the individual mandate. After all, these are the guys that gave us Citizen's United and we are already seeing the predictable havoc being wreaked in its wake. The problem is that if you kill the individual mandate then the prohibition against denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions will cause premiums to skyrocket even more than they typically do. Then again, maybe that's been the strategy all along? Anticipate that the GOP would lose their collective minds over this legislation and then challenge it in court. If the law is upheld then great. If not, then you've just set the stage to do what the people wanted to being with and what every other civilized nation does ... which is to handle the insurance aspect of the health care system in the public sector. And if premiums have gone through the roof then the public pressure to do something will make the likelihood of getting a fundamental change in approach through Congress.

OAW

Obama's solution isn't going to make anything better. Its going to waste a TON of money and nothing real is going to change for msot people

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned in the constitution; It can be implied.


You think anything that resembles socialism is unconstitutional.

It's constitutional because congress has the right to collect taxes to pay for common Defense and general Welfare of the US.



U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I voted it was not constitutional, because I don't believe government has a right to protect people from themselves. They can impose laws such as no pre-existing condition claws being illegal, or set through laws procedure rates but not protecting people from themselves. Then I read this and think perhaps I voted wrong at least as for the constitution this Article and section would make it legal under the constitution.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I really wish one of them had asked about a housing mandate. Everyone needs housing, whether it be rental or owned, we're all part of that market. We should have rental price insurance as a third party payer so that we can pay premiums to the insurer and then it can pay for our housing!

huh... When was the last time you saw a landlord reject a home to some one because of a pre-existing condition or decided to jack the price up 150% because the possible renter is 21 years old HIGH RISK while if it had been a 50 year old it would be cheaper...Housing market in most markets already have controls in place to prevent discrimination, and a pre-existing medical condition in my book is discrimination.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't get it. If your sister couldn't afford insurance before, what will allow her to afford it once it's illegal not to have it? What changed?

Well first of all that comment you responded to wasn't about my sister's situation in particular but the impact on MILLIONS in general. But to answer your question ... there are provisions of the ACA that provide means-tested subsidies for health insurance premiums. As opposed to the status quo where one is just SOL.

OAW

[hyteckit]

I couldn't purchase Broccoli, car insurance, or house insurance because acne is a pre-existing condition.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

... who's worked as a nurse for decades

OAW

Who does she work for? Her employer doesn't offer health insurance?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well first of all that comment you responded to wasn't about my sister's situation in particular but the impact on MILLIONS in general.

Same question, but MILLIONS of times larger: if they can't afford health insurance when it's legal not to have it, how will they be able to afford it when it's illegal not to have it?

But to answer your question ... there are provisions of the ACA that provide means-tested subsidies for health insurance premiums. As opposed to the status quo where one is just SOL.

So it has nothing to do with the mandate, it's just like welfare. It's a red herring to the whole constitutional question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

huh... When was the last time you saw a landlord reject a home to some one because of a pre-existing condition or decided to jack the price up 150% because the possible renter is 21 years old HIGH RISK while if it had been a 50 year old it would be cheaper...Housing market in most markets already have controls in place to prevent discrimination, and a pre-existing medical condition in my book is discrimination.

Actually (young) age is not a protected class, and neither is pet ownership, and I'm pretty sure that landlords discriminate against them routinely.

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Athens]

In BC it is unless its a 55+ only building

Human Rights Code



But I was making a point or trying to which has now escaped me at this moment (thank you pain medication) I will have to figure it out later

[ebuddy]

The fact of the matter is that health care can be purchased without health insurance. The government is attempting to mandate the purchase of a policy through a third-party payer. It will not hold up and this problem is evidenced by how impossible it was for the Solicitor General to defend it. The question is one of sever-ability.

[Athens]

I agree it wont hold up constitutionally.

I also think Obama's current version with all its compromises is going to bankrupt the US.

None of the real problems are solved by this. And you will still see medical bill bankruptcies even after Obama care comes to be.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

While I understand your point ... I would argue that what you refer to as "routine healthcare" is simply not the driver of the astronomical healthcare cost inflation we have been experiencing over the last several decades.

Of course it isn't the only factor, but it's a big part of it, and part of the overall problem of the patient being completely divorced from the actual cost of healthcare.

Also, by routine I don't just mean 'trivial'. Even within the scope of treating major disorders and diseases there's a ton of actual procedure that's simply 'routine'. Even if one is being treated for cancer or any other disorder, there's no reason a large percentage of the actual treatment being performed has to cost a bloody fortune. People act like even with a major disorder, everything that's done as treatment is akin to having open-heart surgery, when mostly, it's 'routine' procedures: scans, tests, medications, exams, etc. All of these things should have REAL WORLD prices attached to them that are affordable- for insured aliments (emergencies, major diseases striking out of the blue) and uninsured (everything else) alike.

Whereas ending up in the emergency room with severe trauma ... or hospitalized with a severe illness or a heart attack ... or diagnosed with a chronic disease like cancer or diabetes most definitely is.

See above. Despite the severity of any condition, the cost of a large percentage of the *actual* healthcare being provided does not need to be inflated into the upper stratosphere. People have just accepted the premise of "I have a serious illness, so EVERY associated cost has to be equally 'serious'. IE: priced insanely, therefore unaffordable unless I'm paying through the nose for some insurance boondoggle.

There's the oft-used example of an aspirin costing $80 on an insurance bill, and insane inflated costs like this do happen all the time. No matter if one is being treated for the flu, or for a brain tumor, all the various associated costs- every exam, every test, every single pill given, every scan/x-ray, whatever- should all have the same competitive costs, that are clearly posted and known beforehand by the patient. Insane bloat in the pricing should not get disguised by the whole insurance scam.

Of course the more severe the ailment, the higher the total cost of care is going to be- but the grand total should be reflective of realistic, competitive prices for all the individual treatments involved.

To bring back a car analogy: if I total my car it's clearly going to cost more to fix than a fender-bender, but the cost of all the individual parts/labor needed remains the same in both instances. Regardless of severity, the buyer isn't divorced from the real world prices involved.

My own nephew was hospitalized with pneumonia for a mere 2-3 days a few years back. Hospital bill was over 10K ... just like that!

I would ask you to really think about- regardless of how serious the ailment, was anything actually done in those 2-3 days that was *really* worth $10,000? I'm talking REAL-WORLD value, not insane insurance 'values'. While I'm sure there were a few costly procedures done, what probably took place was a whole lot of ROUTINE in between the costly things... and nowhere near $10,000 worth of either.

And his mother ... my sister ... who's worked as a nurse for decades simply couldn't afford the health insurance that would have paid for his care. So those costs are shifted to those who do have insurance ...

Uncle Skeleton's already asked the most relevant question here.

Why not try to fix the problem at the core- the insane, inflated costs? Obamacare does nothing to address the out of proportion costs. So basically, it just seeks to force a whole bunch of people like your sister to pay for something that, according to you, they can't afford.

MILLIONS of people who have health insurance today because of the ACA will no longer if this legislation is overturned. And that's real talk right there.

OAW

It's a bitter pill, but sooner or later, MILLIONS of people are going to have to wake up to the fact that creating an even larger scale insurance scam isn't going to help their healthcare anywhere near as much as a return to real-world prices and values for healthcare services would.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Of course it isn't the only factor, but it's a big part of it, and part of the overall problem of the patient being completely divorced from the actual cost of healthcare.

I understand the point you are making here.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Also, by routine I don't just mean 'trivial'. Even within the scope of treating major disorders and diseases there's a ton of actual procedure that's simply 'routine'. Even if one is being treated for cancer or any other disorder, there's no reason a large percentage of the actual treatment being performed has to cost a bloody fortune. People act like even with a major disorder, everything that's done as treatment is akin to having open-heart surgery, when mostly, it's 'routine' procedures: scans, tests, medications, exams, etc. All of these things should have REAL WORLD prices attached to them that are affordable- for insured aliments (emergencies, major diseases striking out of the blue) and uninsured (everything else) alike.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

See above. Despite the severity of any condition, the cost of a large percentage of the *actual* healthcare being provided does not need to be inflated into the upper stratosphere.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

People have just accepted the premise of "I have a serious illness, so EVERY associated cost has to be equally 'serious'. IE: priced insanely, therefore unaffordable unless I'm paying through the nose for some insurance boondoggle.

Now this is where we part company. I don't think it's so much a matter of people have just "accepted" it. It seems to me it's more a matter of people don't have much choice in the matter. Healthcare is not like buying a new shirt. Price too high at Target? Ok .. I'll see what's up at Wal-mart. Price still too high? Fine ... I'll just sit tight until somebody puts it on sale. Some who gets shot in the chest by some knucklehead for wearing a hoodie can't go shopping around for the best "bullet extraction" price if he manages to survive. Someone who has diabetes has very limited options when it comes to "comparison shopping". They have a doctor. That doctor is presumably "in network" otherwise the healthcare insurance won't reimburse fully. That doctor has to practice at certain hospitals that are also "in network" otherwise the healthcare insurance won't reimburse fully. Now you will likely argue that this insurance sh*t is a big part of the problem and I can roll with you on that. This whole "in network" vs. "out of network" crap is SUPPOSED to be a mechanism for the insurance companies to keep costs under control. But clearly it's not working out that way and it seems to be utilized more to organize "cabals" of large healthcare insurance companies and large healthcare providers working in collusion. Where we will likely disagree ... but you never know ... is that I see this as the inevitable outcome when you take something that is always in high demand ... only available from a handful of huge players ... and organize it around the profit motive. I agree with you that the insurance based system is a big part of the problem. Hell earlier I described the industry as a "racket" and I don't think I'm overstating it when the entire business model is based upon collecting as much in premiums as they can from people and then looking for every BS excuse under the sun to deny their claims. My point here is that when you have a healthcare system where access is controlled by a "racket" ... and supply is controlled by "pimps" (i.e. pharmaceutical companies, large hospital organizations, etc.) ... over a product/service you have little choice but to utilize to one degree or another (because without your health you really have nothing) ... well all I'm saying is that there is a helluva lot of "Because they can." going on.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

There's the oft-used example of an aspirin costing $80 on an insurance bill, and insane inflated costs like this do happen all the time. No matter if one is being treated for the flu, or for a brain tumor, all the various associated costs- every exam, every test, every single pill given, every scan/x-ray, whatever- should all have the same competitive costs, that are clearly posted and known beforehand by the patient. Insane bloat in the pricing should not get disguised by the whole insurance scam.

Of course the more severe the ailment, the higher the total cost of care is going to be- but the grand total should be reflective of realistic, competitive prices for all the individual treatments involved.

Agreed. But a lot of those inflated costs are there to cover the costs of treating the uninsured that providers are required by law to do. And a lot of it is due to the "Because they can." factor. When a mother's child is severely ill and she needs that pill to relieve his pain and make him well ... even if the price is posted she's still not in much of a position to haggle over price. Hence why I say the large healthcare providers are "pimps". Their attitude is "B*tch better have my money!" ... and they mean it.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I would ask you to really think about- regardless of how serious the ailment, was anything actually done in those 2-3 days that was *really* worth $10,000? I'm talking REAL-WORLD value, not insane insurance 'values'. While I'm sure there were a few costly procedures done, what probably took place was a whole lot of ROUTINE in between the costly things... and nowhere near $10,000 worth of either.

Dude ... tell me about it!!! You know what his treatment entailed for a bout of pneumonia? This is essentially about it ...

- Lung X-ray
- Medicated breathing treatment
- Antibiotic IV drip
- Hospital stay
- Tylenol

The kid basically got an X-ray to see how much fluid was in his lungs ... got some Tylenol to bring down his fever ... and then sat in a hospitable bed watching TV and playing his Nintendo DS for a couple of days hooked up to an IV until his lungs cleared up enough to be released. With the occasional breathing treatment to speed the process along. A doctor or a nurse popped in every now and again for a minute or two at a time to check on him. But that's basically it. And the bill was over 10K. It was freaking INSANE!!!

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Uncle Skeleton's already asked the most relevant question here.

Why not try to fix the problem at the core- the insane, inflated costs? Obamacare does nothing to address the out of proportion costs. So basically, it just seeks to force a whole bunch of people like your sister to pay for something that, according to you, they can't afford.

But quite unlike the status quo where if you can't afford healthcare insurance you are just SOL ... the ACA provides means-tested subsidies so people can afford it. It's fine to disagree with the ACA if that's one's choice ... but at least let's all be fair and characterize how it works accurately.

As far as the fixing the core problem of "insane, inflated costs" is concerned ... again this is where we will likely disagree. IMO we should just do single-payer and call it a day. That way you have the biggest insurance pool possible to spread the risk. You also eliminate the profit motive from the insurance aspect of the system. And most importantly, you have the ability to mandate a cost control regime because the federal government presumably acting in the public good is the only game in town for the healthcare providers to get a check for basic healthcare. (I think people should be allowed to purchase supplemental insurance on the private market if they choose). This way healthcare costs can be controlled much like a public utility. The electric company can't just go and jack up their rates whenever they feel like it because they know that everybody needs power. The "Because they can." factor is put in check quite effectively with public utilities ... and these companies still make a steady, reasonable profit and ROI . I see no reason why something similar can't be done with the healthcare industry. In fact, every other industrialized nation in the world takes this type of approach and on average they spend HALF of what we do on healthcare costs and get BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES overall. Imagine that.

But of course in the good old US of A it has to be the "American Way or bust" ... even in the face of demonstrably better alternatives. Which is why if you have no health insurance in the US you can easily end up like this ....

Woman thrown out of Missouri hospital for 'trespassing' dies in jail from blood clots - Foxnews.com

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Dude ... tell me about it!!! You know what his treatment entailed for a bout of pneumonia? This is essentially about it ...

- Lung X-ray
- Medicated breathing treatment
- Antibiotic IV drip
- Hospital stay
- Tylenol

The kid basically got an X-ray to see how much fluid was in his lungs ... got some Tylenol to bring down his fever ... and then sat in a hospitable bed watching TV and playing his Nintendo DS for a couple of days hooked up to an IV until his lungs cleared up enough to be released. With the occasional breathing treatment to speed the process along. A doctor or a nurse popped in every now and again for a minute or two at a time to check on him. But that's basically it.

This isn't the 18th century, as you've pointed out in this thread. These sorts of products should be available to perform at home. Professional consultation should be available over FaceTime. X-ray cameras should be as cheap as digital cameras, or at least the radiologist should be as easy as a plumber to get into your house. The vast majority of modern medicine should be becoming appliance-like, and only the actual cutting edge of invention should be the mystifying alchemy that the entire hospital is today.

Why aren't these technologies developing to be cheaper, smaller and more idiot-proof? Because the free market was aborted. There's just no motivation for making things more efficient or cheaper or easier. There's actually significant motivation in the opposite direction, because a ton of people make money by being the gatekeepers to the over-complicated and the arcane, and the only people who are in a position to benefit (end-users) are too far removed from the people who could make improvements (suppliers) to have any effect.

I know, we don't want to trust people to DIY their treatment. That's part of the problem too. If someone doesn't trust themselves, that's all well and good, but we should be encouraging people who want to do what the doctor does for 1/1000th the cost, not outlawing it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Woman thrown out of Missouri hospital for 'trespassing' dies in jail from blood clots - Foxnews.com

OAW

Same thing would have happened here in Canada. If a person is a major problem in the hospital the cops will be called and they will be taken away. Nothing really that special in that story that relates to the health care debate.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know, we don't want to trust people to DIY their treatment. That's part of the problem too. If someone doesn't trust themselves, that's all well and good, but we should be encouraging people who want to do what the doctor does for 1/1000th the cost, not outlawing it.

Isn't the biggest problem liability. If some one screws up with a DIY treatment isn't the company that sold the treatment worried about being sued.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This isn't the 18th century, as you've pointed out in this thread. These sorts of products should be available to perform at home. Professional consultation should be available over FaceTime. X-ray cameras should be as cheap as digital cameras, or at least the radiologist should be as easy as a plumber to get into your house. The vast majority of modern medicine should be becoming appliance-like, and only the actual cutting edge of invention should be the mystifying alchemy that the entire hospital is today.

Why aren't these technologies developing to be cheaper, smaller and more idiot-proof? Because the free market was aborted. There's just no motivation for making things more efficient or cheaper or easier. There's actually significant motivation in the opposite direction, because a ton of people make money by being the gatekeepers to the over-complicated and the arcane, and the only people who are in a position to benefit (end-users) are too far removed from the people who could make improvements (suppliers) to have any effect.

I know, we don't want to trust people to DIY their treatment. That's part of the problem too. If someone doesn't trust themselves, that's all well and good, but we should be encouraging people who want to do what the doctor does for 1/1000th the cost, not outlawing it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Isn't the biggest problem liability. If some one screws up with a DIY treatment isn't the company that sold the treatment worried about being sued.

Sounds like finding a problem where there isn't one. If someone screws up with a DIY car repair, the auto parts store isn't liable for the damage done to the car. If someone screws up with a DIY home improvement, they can't go after Home Depot or HGTV for the damage done to the house. Why shouldn't legal waivers, product warnings and (yes, really) common sense apply to health products in the same way as everything else?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Sounds like finding a problem where there isn't one. If someone screws up with a DIY car repair, the auto parts store isn't liable for the damage done to the car. If someone screws up with a DIY home improvement, they can't go after Home Depot or HGTV for the damage done to the house. Why shouldn't legal waivers, product warnings and (yes, really) common sense apply to health products in the same way as everything else?

Because any kind of screw up on a car and a house can be fixed. There is no life long disability associated with screwing up. On biological organisms, a mistake can not always be repaired and life long disability can easily occur.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Because any kind of screw up on a car and a house can be fixed. There is no life long disability associated with screwing up. On biological organisms, a mistake can not always be repaired and life long disability can easily occur.

But if you nail yourself with a nailgun or cut off all your fingers with a power saw, Home Depot isn't responsible for that either.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But if you nail yourself with a nailgun or cut off all your fingers with a power saw, Home Depot isn't responsible for that either.

People still sue then anyways trying to make them responsible.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

People still sue then anyways trying to make them responsible.

And yet somehow we manage to maintain a market for them, they're bought and used routinely, and they're not causing crippling debt. Sounds like it's working perfectly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

People still sue then anyways trying to make them responsible.

Why is "people will sue" a deal-breaker? We use razors every day on our face and throat. It'd be cool to see an x-ray booth at a Walgreens right next to the blood pressure read-out.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why is "people will sue" a deal-breaker? We use razors every day on our face and throat. It'd be cool to see an x-ray booth at a Walgreens right next to the blood pressure read-out.

I totally agree, but its never going to happen. First the industry is going to do everything it can to protect itself. And it is a industry. Doctors, and all the specialty fields and there unions or organizations will fight any attempt to take business away from them. So will the private companies and hospitals that also profit from it. The drug companies and the medical companies that supply products will also fight it because if overall demand increases competition products will flood the market and devalue everything. As it stands right now a few big players have exclusivity with major providers. Then you have the fear factor of law suites. Doctors have managed to get some protection from law suites over mistakes. I promise you companies wont have that same protection. And because the long term damage and high costs related to those kinds of screw ups no company will want to provide self help medical gadgets in fear of very expensive law suits.

I think the biggest road block would be the professionals and companies that have the most to lose from it over law suites.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I think the biggest road block would be the professionals and companies that have the most to lose from it over law suits.

That doesn't stop you from calling for the government to take up arms in the name of the (not so little) little guy against HFCS professionals and companies. Why are you so eager to let professionals and companies walk all over the little guy when it comes to health care, but not the same with nutrition? You say the biggest road block to making solutions available cheaply and easily to the citizenry is so that we can keep protecting the privileged cash cows of "professionals and companies" who are literally bankrupting the poor and crippled. Isn't that exactly the type of situation where the government is supposed to bust up the monopoly and protect those poor and crippled from the evil professionals and companies? Why should our public policy be to prop up the cartel?

[Athens]

are you from the past..... have you not noticed that your government does everything for business and nothing for the people.

Watch "Hot Coffee" the newest documentary that shows this. Hell I would be willing to drive to your house with it to "watch it" and debate it

When was the last time Public Policy was for the Public

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

are you from the past..... have you not noticed that your government does everything for business and nothing for the people.

Watch "Hot Coffee" the newest documentary that shows this. Hell I would be willing to drive to your house with it to "watch it" and debate it

When was the last time Public Policy was for the Public

Then (I say again) why do you waste your time talking about how they should protect us from corporate HFCS?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then (I say again) why do you waste your time talking about how they should protect us from corporate HFCS?

Well in all honesty its because of government interference they use the cheaper HFCS in the first place since the artificial corn subsidy and the import taxes on Sugar and quota makes HFCS cheaper. But there is Government again working for corporations with corn subsidies and import taxes

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Isn't the biggest problem liability. If some one screws up with a DIY treatment isn't the company that sold the treatment worried about being sued.

So... if I take the entire bottle of Tylenol at one sitting... I can sue them? Er.. that is, my ghost can sue them?

If I shove a rectal thermometer in my eye, I'm sure I can take HoMedics to court wearing an eye patch like a pirate. ARRR!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

A lot of stuff...

I think we both agree the costs are artificially high, we clearly just disagree on the fix for that.

It seems to me your solution is the same one I see from too many others- forget the fact that the costs are too high, just create a huge boondoggle that will pretend we're all 'covered' for the too high costs.

I just don't see that as an actual solution, really just a case of all of us coming down with a national delusion, and accepting the delusion so long as we can all scream "COVERED!" every time we head off to a doctor. Not actually addressing the ridiculous artificial costs and just shifting a large bulk of the undue burden on the young and healthy is not a real solution to me.

My idea of a solution would require a return to market economics and competitive forces in heathcare every bit as much as anything else. Kneejerks always take this to mean "no regulation!" but of course regulations would apply as always, and healthcare practitioners (encouraged rather than discouraged to make the supply meet the demand) would still have to be licensed and screened as always.

It's inarguable the need is vast, and will always be with us. So in a truly healthy system, the supply would be just as high to match- in any and every logical way that can be accomplished, and prices brought under control through the sheer increase in availability. I'd like to see walk in healthcare clinics that serve up 'routine' non-emergency healthcare on a competitive no-insurance scam based model be as common a sight as McDonalds. Hospitals and larger medical centers would handle exclusively emergencies and specialized shops could offer up all sorts of orbiting services. "You need an MRI- go over to DR. MRI down on the corner and get one, they're having a special half off sale today."

As others have pointed out, I don't see where Obamacare would do a thing to address the article you linked. She had Medicaid, she was treated (multiple times in fact), but it seems she was arrested for refusing to leave AFTER being treated. (That would happen to anyone, a hospital isn't a homeless shelter or a free motel). Her death seems if anything an indictment of police treatment, not the healthcare system. (Gee, do I even need to make my point again about how the law ENFORCEMENT arm of Big Government never seems to be very kind and gentle to the poorest (liabilities) no matter how much the law MAKING arm of Big Government talks a lot of BULL about how much they pretend to love poor people?)

Reading about that story on the St. Louis site, it reads like her life was in fact dominated by government: services, programs, social workers, councilors, courts, medical staff, etc. etc. etc. A lot more attention than the average person ever gets. (Or hopefully needs.) Excuse me if I don't see even more Big Government services as the catch-all solution to the problems of unfortunate people like that.

[The Final Dakar]

Also, Dewey defeats Mandate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, Dewey defeats Mandate.

Huh? It's been upheld, according to CNN.

[The Final Dakar]

Read my text.

[ironknee]

where's your god now?

[The Final Shortcut]

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/s...49670190161920

[OAW]

The SCOTUS ruled that the "individual mandate" was unconstitutional under the "Commerce Clause", but OK under the "Taxing and Spending Clause". Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal wing in a 5-4 decision. Bottom line? Obamacare was upheld in all its flawed glory.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Its the worst thing the SCOTUS can do to Owe-bama. Every conservative will be at the polls this Nov. It's a good bet the Senate will be lost as well as the White House.

[Snow-i]

There goes the country.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its the worst thing the SCOTUS can do to Owe-bama. Every conservative will be at the polls this Nov. It's a good bet the Senate will be lost as well as the White House.

Yup, everyone will be dying to vote for the guy who enacted the same thing in his state.

[Snow-i]

Dow Jones has already tanked 1% as of 1130.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Its the worst thing the SCOTUS can do to Owe-bama. Every conservative will be at the polls this Nov. It's a good bet the Senate will be lost as well as the White House.

I think you are right. Conservatives will flock to the polls in November in outrage because the SCOTUS upheld a "GOP proposal originally proposed by Conservative think tanks". Which is quite indicative of the political insanity on the right these days. In any event, to repeal Obamacare the GOP would not only have to win the Presidency, but they would also have to have a 60+, filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Accomplishing both is a tad bit optimistic n'est-ce pas?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yup, everyone will be dying to vote for the guy who enacted the same thing in his state.

Now there you go mentioning those little things we call facts again.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Dow Jones has already tanked 1% as of 1130.

Obamacare killed the economy!

You guys have anything of substance to add? I about shit myself when I heard Roberts sided with the liberal side of the court for a 5-4.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now there you go mentioning those little things we call facts again.

OAW

Nah, that's an opinion just like Badkosh's. I'm sure this will energize the conservative base, but this is nothing but silver-lining talk avoiding facing the implications of the actual ruling.

If it had been overturned, the same people would be saying Obama's base would be demoralized. I get bored of spin.

[OAW]

My opinion? I don't think Obamacare is going to be a determinative factor in the upcoming election one way or the other. A month from now this entire story will be out of the news.

OAW