Healthcare....again

[CatherineM]

The Forest Service works pretty good too.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='faithfulrock3r' post='1925206' date='Jul 20 2009, 12:03 AM']hey I was wondering what you meant when you said that people below the poverty line in america do no have to pay for health care. How exactly does that work? Thanks[/quote]


well since my sister has taken a liking to using me as an example ... I guess I can answer you for her.

Patients whose income falls below the federal poverty level (around 10 grand for 1 person) receive treatment under a federally funded program called "Disproportionate Share Hospital Program." Hospitals are reimbursed by the government for care they provide to these individuals.

Additionally ...

Most hospitals in America are "non-profit" institutions. This means that they are entitled to certain significant tax breaks. In order to qualify as a non-profit and receive these tax breaks, hospitals must provide a certain amount of "uncompensated charity care." For this reason, many hospitals have their own privately funded financial assistance programs. It is a widespread practice among American hospital systems to treat patients with incomes under 200% of the federal poverty guidelines (20 grand for a family of 1) for free, and to provide care on a "sliding scale" for people with incomes greater than that.

Most medications are available free of charge to people under 200% of the federal poverty guideline through privately funded patient assistance programs. Many of these programs were established by pharmaceutical companies as a good will gesture after a great deal of noise was made in Congress about the cost of drugs.

There are some upper tier medications which are not covered by these programs. I took an anti-rejection drug which was not covered. These can then be dispensed in the hospital setting, where the programs I mentioned before cover it.

So, medical care is available to poor people in this country. The catch is, this way of doing things forces the uninsured to use hospitals as their sole medical provider, which puts a lot of strain on the system. It's a lot more expensive to society when people have to visit a hospital instead of their neighborhood doctor.

P.S. The other thing my sister mentioned, about how if there was socialized medical care, I would have had to wait for surgery ...

I belong to an online support group for that kind of thing, which happens to be based in England. Yes, if it is not classified as "emergent" then it is "elective" and they do typically wait 2-3 months. I was shocked when I heard this, but they do not complain about it, not at all. I assume this is because they are used to it. In the two years that I have belonged, the only griping I have heard is when the day finally comes and it has to be rescheduled because no bed is available.

[Angel*Star]

[quote name='philothea' post='1925192' date='Jul 19 2009, 10:44 PM']Uhh... the military, the National Weather Service, the interstate highway system, the Treasury, the FAA, the National Park Service...

There are plenty of things the government does decently well -- far better than any private agency could do. Sure, there are a number of tasks the government does very badly at, too.

I suspect that health care -- in our day -- is a government-level task.[/quote]

I would agree with you on what you said except on the health care. I want to go to the doctor of my choice. There are improvements needed, but the government is not the answer. I don't think we would get what we think we want.

[reelguy227]

Did anybody miss the fact that I said it was unconstitutional?? That should be enough to end the debate on government run healthcare.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Angel*Star' post='1925496' date='Jul 20 2009, 07:25 AM']I would agree with you on what you said except on the health care. I want to go to the doctor of my choice. There are improvements needed, but the government is not the answer. I don't think we would get what we think we want.[/quote]
You're assuming you wouldn't be able to go to the doctor of your choice under socialised medicine. When I was in the US, my insurance provider gave me a list of docs I could see. If I wanted to go to a doctor not on that list, tough. Here you typically register with the GP closest to you (definitely more convenient that way), but there are ways to register with another GP if wanted/needed, as far as I know (I've never felt a need to change GPs except when moving to a different location). There are multiple docs within my GP surgery, and I can choose to not see one if I wish, as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1925513' date='Jul 20 2009, 01:45 AM']Did anybody miss the fact that I said it was unconstitutional?? That should be enough to end the debate on government run healthcare.[/quote]

the constitution has clauses that allow for taxing and spending.
in a way, since congress has to state where it gets its power from in the const, one might say that it has to show that spending power, and a separate independant basis, let it effectively be able to way too much. i know the sup court said that this is not the case, taxing and spending is sufficient basis. (and it still couldn't regulate in the name of taxing and spending)
plus even if the regulations of healthcare are merely related to 'commerce clause', well that's enough to me. there's two conflicting conservative princiles here: strict constructionism v. judicial lawmaking. if ya say "health care doesn't affect commerce" then you're engaging in judicial lawmaking, as i see it, cause it's at least reasonable that it does affect it. of course, deferring to congress means ya can't be rigid in what 'commerce' means, but that's the inherent nature of the situation- you got to choose one princple over the other. at the end of the day, i see judicial lawmaking as worse.

i don't see how it's unconstitutional. i'm open to insight.

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1925588' date='Jul 20 2009, 09:08 AM']i don't see how it's unconstitutional. i'm open to insight.[/quote]

The question is [i]not[/i] how it's unconstitutional, but how it is constitutional. (And it's not.)

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1925590' date='Jul 20 2009, 09:31 AM']The question is [i]not[/i] how it's unconstitutional, but how it is constitutional. (And it's not.)[/quote]
And since the only evidence we need is someone saying so, thank goodness we have you.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1925513' date='Jul 20 2009, 01:45 AM']Did anybody miss the fact that I said it was unconstitutional?? That should be enough to end the debate on government run healthcare.[/quote]

I must have missed my Constitutional Law class the day we discussed this in law school. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

[philothea]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1925627' date='Jul 20 2009, 12:54 PM']I must have missed my Constitutional Law class the day we discussed this in law school. Perhaps you could enlighten us?[/quote]

[reelguy227]

The reason the public option is unconstitutional is because nothing in Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money it gets from its constituents on objects of benevolence or charity, such as a healthcare plan. Congress can only carry out those powers that are specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, any other powers not explicitly stated in that section belong to the states and to the people respectively, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If it's not mentioned in those enumerated powers, Congress can't do it. Plain and simple.

This same argument goes for Social Security as well, which at first, was thought to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back when it was introduced by President Roosevelt. That is, until the court buckled and allowed Social Security when Roosevelt threatened to pack it with justices who agreed with him, working in unison with the Democrat congress of course. Once threatened, the court cracked and allowed social security by a vote of 7-2.

Social security flung wide open Pandora's box, setting the precedent for nearly every federal entitlement program we have today—programs that now take up nearly 60% of the federal budget and are close to going bankrupt, with nearly 50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that will come due one day.

Edited July 20, 2009 by reelguy227

[jeffpugh]

Better not let LD see this thread

Btw, I got to "choose" my doctor. But it's not always that easy to "choose" the doctor of your liking. Sometimes it is physically impossible for he/she to have you as a patient. It's called full schedules.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1925681' date='Jul 20 2009, 01:24 PM']The reason the public option is unconstitutional is because nothing in Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money it gets from its constituents on objects of benevolence or charity, such as a healthcare plan. Congress can only carry out those powers that are specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, any other powers not explicitly stated in that section belong to the states and to the people respectively, as stated in the Tenth Amendment. If it's not mentioned in those enumerated powers, Congress can't do it. Plain and simple.

This same argument goes for Social Security as well, which at first, was thought to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court back when it was introduced by President Roosevelt. That is, until the court buckled and allowed Social Security when Roosevelt threatened to pack it with justices who agreed with him, working in unison with the Democrat congress of course. Once threatened, the court cracked and allowed social security by a vote of 7-2.

Social security flung wide open Pandora's box, setting the precedent for nearly every federal entitlement program we have today—programs that now take up nearly 60% of the federal budget and are close to going bankrupt, with nearly 50 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that will come due one day.[/quote]

So I guess you don't have grandparents still living, or parents who are old enough to need Social Security? Because if you feel that strongly about it, you could just agree to pay the amount they are getting from it, and not have your relatives getting entitlements. See how that goes over.

[reelguy227]

Of course I have grandparents and parents. When did I ever say do away with Social Security (although I'd like to see it slowly reformed and privatized)? Now that it's already institutionalized it will most likely go on indefinitely, that is until the system goes bankrupt, which is slated to happen in the next fifty years. And once that happens, I'd rather be dead than live to see it, because the financial and economic consequences that will stem from Social Security's bankruptcy will make last September's financial crisis look like child's play in comparison.

As the late great Ronald Reagan once said: "a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on earth."

Edited July 20, 2009 by reelguy227

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='reelguy227' post='1925785' date='Jul 20 2009, 03:42 PM']When did I ever say do away with social security? Of course I have grandparents and parents.[/quote]
Your comparison kind of implied you were against public health insurance because of it being unconstitution, like social security. That implies you are also against social security.