Unconstitutionalcare

[CarltonBanks]

Insurance companies don't make triple-digit-million quarterly profits by signing lots of checks! Let's hope they're allowed to return at once to refusing to allow sick people to access treatment.

This won't hurt them in the slightest. This law forces every person in America to patronize these companies, whether they want to or not. This is the health insurance industry's wet dream. I understand why conservatives oppose it (anti-Obama is their brand now), but why on earth are liberals fighting for it?

Because there are certain aspects to it that finally take care (hopefully) of some of the bullshirt that insurance companies were getting away with for years. No more denying coverage on alleged pre-existing conditions. No more putting a lifetime cap on the amount of money that a company will pay, thereby preventing people with serious illnesses or injuries from becoming bankrupt. And it allows parents to keep their kids on their plan longer while the kids are struggling in this economy to either get a FT job, or to use the job to pay back their student loans instead of having their checks deducted for insurance.

I thought this was different because this was the first time a Democrat deemed the individual mandate unconstitutional. And, JohnnyD, that is my question. Yes, our health care coverage system is a mess and, yes, something needs to be done. But it is better to do nothing than do the wrong thing. This law is a fiasco. For all the talk of bipartisianship when Obama took office, this was the biggest indication that he was just blowing smoke. Even recently the CBO found another $50 billion annually in hidden costs. We simply cannot afford this law, and the law does not even come close to doing what liberals want. All this does is tell John Q. Taxpayer he HAS to buy health insurance. How is this a good law?

Well, the GOP had power for almost 6 years. If they were serious about health care reform, they would have done something. They didn't.

I've said it before. Had the GOP done some sort of reform of the worst parts of the industry, such as the pre-existing bullshirt, or the "Usual and customary" crap, there wouldn't have been a need for Obamacare.

Baron, I agree with you. The GOP's refusal to tackle this in the six years it had the lead is inexcusable. That was yet another thing on Bush's long list of topics where he had a failureship to lead, and he does deserve to be taken to task for this. However...
Bush got hammered for his expensive prescription drug program that was yet another unfunded mandate. Obama's health care reform is much, much more of the same. They are still finding things in it that will add to the cost. Like I said, doing nothing was better than doing the wrong thing. However, I see your point that something had to be done. So this leads to the crux of the argument...yhis should have been handled quite differently. Passing something this huge on a purely partisan basis was a big mistake by Obama, and I really think despite all the talk about the debt limit and his percieved weakness there, the reason Obama is going to lose in 2012 is because of how Obamacare was passed against the will of the people. I think about the Dems prancing past the protestors on the Hill, what a show of arrogance that was. Nancy Pelosi and her friends just added fuel to the fire and MADE SURE the Tea Party and friends would not forget. That kind of set the tone for the rest of Obama's term.

What should have been done was a solid, if not unspectacular, approach to health care reform that incorporated ideas from all sides. Not a giant "F-You" approach. Something could have been done that was an actual positive achievement form Obama...a real legacy instead of what we ended up with. The Republicans showed up ready to talk and were told there was no room at the Inn. This is not Obama's fault, but it reflected badly on him because the entire process seemed so corrupt.
Meanwhile, again in a failure to message well, Obama's staff went with "we are going to add 30 million people to the health care insurance rolls, people who cannot afford to pay for it, and doing this will save us billions of dollars." Seriously, that was the message. Sometimes I wonder if Obama even has PR people.
I think this law will either be struck down or repealed. When this happens I hope the GOP can, instead of taking an Obama-bashing victory lap, actually get together with the other side to solve the problem correctly this time. I won't hold my breath.

Carlton, I give you credit for admitting the GOP's wrongdoing on healthcare. Though what ultimately passed was something that Republicans would have accepted when the Clintons tried this in 1993.

How about this idea: create a set of federal coverage standards (X% must be covered by Y date, no exclusion for pre-existing conditions, etc.) and let each state develop its own system to meet those standards. If a state wants something like Mitt Romney signed in MA, that's OK. If a state wants a single-payer system like Vermont's governor signed a few months ago, that's OK too. The key is that each state is designing its own system, rather than a federally-mandated, one-size-fits-all system.

Would that have been more acceptable to you?

Sub... not to go all tenther on you but, yes, that would have been much more acceptable. One size fits all programs rarely work at any level of government. If the states were given the ability to not just decide, but add or subtract from the packages offered, yes, that would have been much better.

 

[JonnyD]

Actually, now that I think about it, weren't journalists the ones who established the court precedent that taxation used punitively is the equivalent of a ban? Something about a newspaper tax in Minnesota, I dunno, it's been forever since comm law and I'm getting old.

 

[CarltonBanks]

It addresses it by pointing out in a rather obvious way that the consumer already is bearing some of the cost.

The two parts of our economy where costs are rising far beyond the rate of inflation are education costs & health care costs. It's not a coincidence that the consumer of both is often insulated from the costs.

In these debates, we often hear about childhood diseases and cancer. Terrible diseases whose costs to care for are far beyond the means of an individual to pay.

But, a huge reason for increased costs in health care are based on lifestyle choices. Weight problems chief among them. Alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, promiscuous sex also play a part.

When the difference between "healthy" and "sick" is based on personal decisions, forcing the "healthy" to subsidize the care of the "sick" is not right.

When people are forced to deal with the costs of their decisions, costs will go down.

I keep seeing an ad for a medication for gout.

You know what the "cure" for gout is? Eat better.

But, now, people want and expect a pill to address the symptoms of their disease, rather than dealing with the underlying cause.

Until we address the underlying cause, costs will continue to spiral upwards.

And, at the end of the day, Government is going to have to ration health care. We all know it.

How are they going to do it? Who makes the decision? Who gets treated?

We're going to continue on this dead end path until the system is so broken, and we can't afford it. Then there's going to be heck to pay.

All of this is pretty much dead-on.

One reason it makes me absolutely ill to see Palin and other movement conservatives rip Michelle Obama at every turn for promoting healthy eating habits. WTF?

Well, Palin was ripped for "death panels," and in a roundabout way isn't that what you are talking about?

 

[deskslave]

Because health outcomes aren't already affected by the state one lives in.

To say nothing of the fact that the states where a government role is likely to be most needed also happen to be those states that like to trash the feds while simultaneously holding out their hands.

And say what you will: There is no way on God's green earth that the federal government setting minimums for the states to meet wouldn't have been met with the same hue and cry that the current plan has been.

 

[CarltonBanks]

Saw the subject line. Bet myself a million bucks I knew who started the thread. Clicking to see confirmed I won. And lost.

Should have just looked next to the subject line where is says who started the thread. Dummy.

 

[YankeeFan]

Well, Palin was ripped for "death panels," and in a roundabout way isn't that what you are talking about?

I guess I'd just say that I don't know what a "Death Panel" is. It sounds like people would be voting to send grandma off to a gas chamber.

That's not going to happen. But, the rationing of health care is going to be a necessity. It's the only way we're not going to bankrupt ourselves to pay for its increasing costs.

Obama already laid out an example (video at the link):

"I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit," Obama said. … "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers."

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/21/video-let-them-eat-painkillers/

The President also is/was under the impression that money can be saved by making sure unnecessary procedures aren't done. Maybe this is somewhat true, but who decides -- a government bean counter?

And, his example was way off, and terribly insulting to doctors (video at link):

[L]et's take the example of something like diabetes, one of --- a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/16/surgeons-challenge-obamas-50k-amputation-claim-media-mum#ixzz1Ux04caJB

In this case, not only was he wrong on how doctors provide care, but he was way off on the price.

 

[Azrael]

http://www.hospitalmanagement.net/features/feature627/


The direct cost of an amputation associated with the diabetic foot is estimated to be between $30,000 and $60,000. The estimated cost for three years of subsequent care for individuals whose ulcer has healed without the need for amputation has been estimated to be between $16,000 and $27,000.

The corresponding cost for someone who eventually needs an amputation ranges from $43,000 to $63,000 – mainly due to the increased need for home care and social services.

 

[YankeeFan]

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

 

[Azrael]

I know what their statement said. I know what the president said.

I also know that what a surgeon is reimbursed isn't what a leg amputation "costs."

It's one part of the cost.

And I'm shocked that doctors would try to put the brakes on health care reform.

 

[JonnyD]

I once interviewed the CEO of a smallish regional hospital, and he was adamant that the solution for rising health-care costs was to have hospitals be paid based on the results and not the treatments.

 

[CarltonBanks]

I do agree that employers providing health care is not very efficient or even logical. Why not have them provide car insurance as well? Seems odd. The system needs a big fix, but both sides will have to grow up and do something for the good of the American People for a change (instead of for the corporate entities that load them up with dollar bills). Neither side is interested in working with the other, however. And thats the biggest problem. Even here, why is it the typical righties on here can't discuss things without some lefties throwing temper tantrums and acting like petulant children? I think both myself and YF have been pretty rational in this thread...but it's the same old tired crap from the same old tired people. Oh well.

 

[HC]

I certainly don't trust the government to correct it. I have no desire to turn into Canada or Europe. I do agree that the Republicans cannot waste time celebrating when this gets deemed unconstitutional. They need to live up to all three of Mitch McConnell's points on ObamaCare: repeal, replace and reform. One out of three is not good.

As a Canadian, I have no desire to turn into the US. Whatever you've 'heard', I don't know a single Canadian that would trade our system for yours. In fact, if you want to trade anecdotal evidence, an actor I worked with was in Canada long enough to qualify for Canadian health care and got the surgery for debilitating back pain he'd been putting off for 10 years because it was going to cost him approximately $100,000 in the US. Here .... not a cent.