Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby Symmetry on Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:52 pm

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:50 pm

Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby Symmetry on Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:57 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.


I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.

Keep going TGD.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:58 pm

Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.


I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.

Keep going TGD.


You know, if you keep patting yourself on the back you might pull a muscle.

Have a happy November 22nd!
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby Symmetry on Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:05 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.


I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.

Keep going TGD.


You know, if you keep patting yourself on the back you might pull a muscle.

Have a happy November 22nd!


I've never found patting my back particularly strenuous. Is US healthcare so bad that patting your own back is risky?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:52 pm

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.


Forbes warns OBamacare opponents not to get their hopes up

The Supreme Court today ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to take a second look at Liberty Universityā€˜s challenge of the health reform act to resolve questions not answered in the high courtā€™s June decision upholding Obamacare.

The order gives some hope to foes of the healthcare law, but not much. As Forbes blogger Rick Ungar notes today, the Fourth Circuit is one countryā€™s more liberal federal courts and even the U.S. Solicitor General declined to intervene, figuring Liberty will go down to defeat once again.

ā€œItā€™s not much of a sign of anything,ā€ said Andy Pincus, an appellate specialist with Mayer Brown in Washington. While the Supreme Court technically granted certiorari or judicial review of the case, it was what is known as a GVR in the trade, as in ā€œgrant, vacate and remand.ā€ The Court commonly does this when there are appeals it has previously frozen that donā€™t address the specific questions it resolved in a decision.

In this case, Liberty University, a fundamentalist Christian institution, opposed the employer insurance mandates and the requirement that insurance policies include contraception. The Fourth Circuit never got to those questions when it rejected Liberty Universityā€™s challenge in a decision in September 2011, instead finding that the lawsuit was blocked by the Anti-Injunction Act prohibiting suits seeking to prevent a tax from being collected. But in a lengthy dissent, Judge Andre M. Davis argued the case should have been heard, and dismissed, because Obamacare passes muster under the Constitutionā€™s Commerce Clause.

Assuming the same three judges hear Liberty Universityā€™s appeal this time, it is unlikely they will rule in the schoolā€™s favor. Davis specifically rejected the employer mandate along conventional constitutional grounds, finding that even employers who operate within a single state can be subjected to federal regulations, much as civil-rights laws apply even to local diners and motels.

ā€œItā€™s interesting that Liberty wants to do it, because theyā€™re starting with a panel where they know one of the judges is against them,ā€ Pincus said.

If Liberty loses again, it can always appeal to the Supreme Court. But the high court may well take a pass the second time. Chief Justice Roberts assembled a majority in favor of the idea that Obamacare violated the Commerce Clause, but held the law was valid under Congressā€™s taxing powers. Conservatives hope heā€™ll use the Liberty case to gut the law by finding the employer mandate invalid, but itā€™s equally likely the court will wait for later challenges based on how the law is implemented. Religious objections to the contraception requirement also might find better challenges after the law has been in effect for a while.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... care-case/
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby spurgistan on Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:33 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.


The way I've traditionally read NS is him saying malpractice is THE reason for rising health care costs, or at least one of the biggest. The fact that malpractice is at best a minor cost consideration in the second-most expensive county in the country is a reasonable case study arguing against that. More case studies done reasonably objectively (it's hard to argue against the methodology in the McAllen case could have counties in which malpractice is a stronger determinant of health care costs.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:55 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.

As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.

This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.

Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby PLAYER57832 on Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:57 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.


Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:14 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.


Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.


Willfully killing others has never had anything to do with one's own body, and really, it doesn't have anything to do with religion either.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:15 pm

Night Strike wrote:Willfully killing others has never had anything to do with one's own body, and really, it doesn't have anything to do with religion either.


This is true. Abortion touches on a much larger issue than women's rights, even if that's something to be considered in whether abortion should be legal.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:26 pm

spurgistan wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.


The way I've traditionally read NS is him saying malpractice is THE reason for rising health care costs, or at least one of the biggest. The fact that malpractice is at best a minor cost consideration in the second-most expensive county in the country is a reasonable case study arguing against that. More case studies done reasonably objectively (it's hard to argue against the methodology in the McAllen case could have counties in which malpractice is a stronger determinant of health care costs.


Most states don't have caps on malpractice awards, which is why I made the point in the first place. I love that article; I've read it numerous times and it's very good. However, it cannot be held up to the rest of the country as the best example of rising costs of healthcare. That being said, I do not agree with NS that malpractice awards are the biggest reason that healthcare costs are high. I'm also a biased attorney.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:32 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.

As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.

This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.

Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.


Doctors are supposedly not permitted to do these types of things (i.e. prolong treatment and injury). And for the most part I do not think they do; however, with the amount of tests they are required to do, it can become rather ridiculous.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby Night Strike on Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:37 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.

As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.

This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.

Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.


Doctors are supposedly not permitted to do these types of things (i.e. prolong treatment and injury). And for the most part I do not think they do; however, with the amount of tests they are required to do, it can become rather ridiculous.


What will happen when they have to do all these tests AND each test takes an extra couple of weeks due to a full wait list of people getting "free" health care?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:41 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.


Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.


pretty sure you have completely forgotten to factor in the entire premise......FORCING someone else to pay for your contraception or abortion, to be specific.

It's about how tax dollars are spent, it has nothing to do with your privacy. You can still do all those things, but you cannot force someone else to make it easier for you to do those things, especially when they don't believe in those things.

That would be like me trying to force you to chip in 27$ a month to make sure guns are accessible and cheap for all people. We don't need your 27$ in order to have a second amendment, and you don't need my 27$ in order to have control over your own body.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: States Defiant!

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:49 am

Night Strike wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.


Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.

As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.

This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.

Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.


Doctors are supposedly not permitted to do these types of things (i.e. prolong treatment and injury). And for the most part I do not think they do; however, with the amount of tests they are required to do, it can become rather ridiculous.


What will happen when they have to do all these tests AND each test takes an extra couple of weeks due to a full wait list of people getting "free" health care?


I'm not really worried about the quality of my healthcare. What I am worried about is that costs will continue to rise, in my opinion and that it is more likely those rising costs will fall more heavily on me (for a variety of reasons: my firm may drop its health insurance; I will pay more taxes; medical device excise taxes will get passed through to consumers, etc.).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Night Strike on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:27 am

Obama won, Obamacare is the law, and, as my wife says, I will just have to learn to dance to a new song.

Now, donā€™t get me wrong, Obamacare is awful. Forget all the ā€œfree stuffā€ it provides. Children covered on their parentsā€™ plan until 26 years of age? A scam, making young adults ā€” excuse me, children ā€” pay for complete, comprehensive health insurance when all they need and should pay for is major catastrophe insurance. Then there is the ā€œannual ā€ or ā€œpreventativeā€ exam, which according to Obamacare is ā€œfree.ā€

You gotta love this stuff. I wish I had the chutzpah of the people who wrote Obamacare. What they did not tell you, and I am, is that it covers absolutely nothing more than the bare minimum.

I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits. Remember Obama promised this as a free exam ā€” no co-pay, no deductible, no charge. Thatā€™s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints. However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit. An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding. This annual visit covers the exam and ā€œdiscussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.ā€ Thatā€™s the exact wording under that code ā€” insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.

If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition. I cannot bait and switch to another code ā€” thatā€™s illegal. We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.

You, the patient, will then have to make a decision.

Do you want your ā€œfreeā€ yearly exam, or do you want to pay for a visit which is coded for a particular, new problem? You can have my ā€œfreeā€ exam if you only discuss what Obamacare wants me to discuss.

This happened to me personally, as a patient, when I went for my physical. It is the law. If you are complaining of a new problem, then you have to reschedule, since Obamacare is very clear as to what is covered and what is not. Obamacare ā€” intentionally ā€” makes it as difficult to be seen and taken care of as possible.

Patients can be very tricky. I have had patients make an ā€œannualā€ exam, only to want to discuss and be treated for another ailment. I canā€™t do it.

I can hear the complaints from you guys already ā€” I become the bad guy. ā€œWhy donā€™t you just take care of the problem, and not bill out any different code? Youā€™re a rich doctor, and we are entitled to free stuff.ā€

It doesnā€™t work that way. First, doctors are not rich and, like most of you, actually work terribly hard for a living. Second, Obamacare is the law ā€” and as I said earlier, we are audited all the time now.

Also ā€” I donā€™t ask for free gas when I go to the gas station, or ask for free food from the supermarket. Additionally, Obamacare has a 23% cut in Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals.

These lower payments wonā€™t cover the cost of staying in practice to take care of the patient.

Private doctors are becoming a thing of the past. By 2014, less than 25% of physicians will be in private medicine. Obama was right in stating you can keep your doctor if you want to ā€” the problem is he or she will rarely be available.

On top of all of that, doctors will be obligated ā€” thatā€™s right, obligated ā€” to talk to you about things you may have no interest or need to talk about.

You may just want to have a pap smear or check your cholesterol. However, I am now mandated by the government to talk to you about your weight, exercise, family life, smoking, sexual abuse(!), and even to ask if you wear seat belts. And I am mandated to record your answers.

I am a physician. But I need to tell you to wear a seat belt and then record your answer.

I have received interesting responses from my patients since I put up the notice. Almost all are supportive and totally understand. The very few who complain? The same patients who always ask for free samples, who always complain that we do not validate parking. These are also the same patients who call my office and ask for free samples even when they are not even being seen.

Obamacare and its 2,000-plus pages are here to stay. I will still give my patients 100% of my time, energy, and knowledge. I still love being a doctor ā€” my patientsā€™ doctor. I will, however, abide by the law and follow it to the letter. I will have to learn this new dance. ā€œFreeā€ has its price.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-physicians-new-reality-patients-ask-me-to-break-the-law/?singlepage=true
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:32 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.


Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.


Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby jj3044 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:59 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.


Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.


Image

But isn't this already happening today? The government supports Planned Parenthood, right? Or am I mistaken on that?

What I just don't understand in the argument is that you are saying basically that "if I don't use it, I don't want to pay for it". So basically there are no government programs that you would keep if you had your way. Zero. Unemployment, Medicare, etc.
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:03 pm

ummmmmmm, unemployment and medicare?

there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby Phatscotty on Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:10 pm

http://kstp.com/news/stories/s2849213.shtml

A conservative legal group claims in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that Minnesota taxpayers have been wrongfully charged for more than 37,000 elective abortions for indigent women since 1999.

The Alliance Defending Freedom argues that state government is allowed to pay for abortions for indigent women only for "therapeutic reasons," including when the life or health of the woman is in danger or in cases of rape or incest, under state laws and a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision.

But the group, citing state health department data it reviewed, said the state paid for thousands of abortions that it believes did not meet that standard.

The lawsuit cites health department figures showing that Minnesota medical assistance programs paid for 47,095 abortions on indigent women from 1999 through 2011. The lawsuit claims the state's numbers indicate that - at most - only 10,044 of those abortions may have qualified under the 1995 court decision.

The lawsuit says that means the state paid for at least 37,051 abortions that weren't medically necessary, without the legal authority to do so.

The ADF obtained the key data under the state's Data Practices Act, which allows the public access to government data.

The lawsuit, filed in Ramsey County District Court in St. Paul, names Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson. It seeks injunctions to eliminate the use of public funds for non-therapeutic abortions, as well as a halt to public funding of all abortions until the department can show that public funds won't be misused. It also asks the court to direct the department to recover any unlawful payments made to abortion providers.

And it also asks the court to dissolve the injunction enforcing Supreme Court's 1995 ruling, known as Doe v. Gomez, which held that the state can't deny abortions to women on medical assistance "when the procedure is necessary for therapeutic reasons."

The Department of Human Services issued a brief statement saying it was reviewing the factual and legal claims in the complaint and that it would file a timely response with the court.

The lawsuit does not name Planned Parenthood, which is Minnesota's largest abortion provider and inevitably would be affected by any further restrictions on state funding for abortions. Spokeswoman Jennifer Aulwes said the organization does not comment on lawsuits when it's not a party to them.

Steven Aden, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the numbers cited in the lawsuit represent the "best assessment" the group could make based on the statistics available. He said a fuller picture of the "illegitimate public funding of elective abortions" will emerge as the case proceeds.

Minnesota spends about $1.5 million annually on abortions for indigent women, the lawsuit says.

"It's a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars in the state of Minnesota and an unfortunate tragedy as well," Aden said.

The data came from forms that providers are required to submit to the state on every abortion they perform, and include the reasons for the abortions.

Abortion providers also must submit separate forms to receive payments for patients on public assistance. The allowed reasons on that form include unspecified "other health reasons," which was the reason cited for 99.7 percent of the 19,295 publicly funded abortions from 2006 to 2010, according to the lawsuit. That suggests providers are abusing it for abortions that don't really qualify, the group claims.

The situation has been compounded by the Department of Human Services' "lack of meaningful review of the medical necessity of the abortions for which it has been paying. As a result, a majority of abortions that have been paid for with public funds since at least 1999 have been performed for non-therapeutic reasons and in violation of the Gomez injunction," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also injects a racial element into the debate. The two named plaintiffs, Denise and Brian Walker, are an African-American couple, and it claims a disproportionate number of the disputed abortions were performed on African-American women. The lawsuit says blacks make up about 5 percent of the state's population, but that 40 percent of publicly funded abortions in Minnesota from 1999 to 2011 were performed on African-American women, or 19,152 total.

The lawsuit says they're "especially aggrieved" that the effect "is to disproportionately inhibit the growth of the African American population in this state."

Aden defended the racial angle, saying the Walkers "and many other Minnesotans don't want to see their tax dollars going to elective abortions that disproportionately affect the African-American community."
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:12 am

Does anyone ever read any these whole quoted infotainment news stories that get posted in topics? I don't think I usually do. Unless they involve NASA.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby spurgistan on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:41 am

AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone ever read any these whole quoted infotainment news stories that get posted in topics? I don't think I usually do. Unless they involve NASA.


--Andy


Or bananas.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:47 am

spurgistan wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:Does anyone ever read any these whole quoted infotainment news stories that get posted in topics? I don't think I usually do. Unless they involve NASA.


--Andy


Or bananas.


(That goes without saying.)


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Liberty VS ObamaCare: Back to Supreme Court

Postby jj3044 on Thu Nov 29, 2012 5:58 pm

Phatscotty wrote:ummmmmmm, unemployment and medicare?

there is currently a battle over planned parent hood funding, as well as tax-payer subsidized contraceptives and abortions on demand.

What's wrong with "if you want it, then you go get it" Not like anyone is trying to tell another what to do or what not to do.....pretty simple

Yes... if you never use unemployment, should you pay for the "freeloaders"?

Same thought process with medicare, although I admit it is a weaker example as most people will be on medicare assuming they make it to the appropriate age.

My point is that there probably aren't ANY government-funded programs that at least one person couldn't go say "I'll never use that service, so I'm not paying that percentage of my taxes!".

So... where does it end?
Image
User avatar
Colonel jj3044
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users