# Is it Constitutional?...Will it be challenged?



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

> by Ken Klukowski
> - FOXNews.com
> - October 30, 2009
> An Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs
> ...


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

The trouble is he would get more response from a fence post! Dumber than a post applies to Pelosi and Gibbs. They will be the leading cause of civil unrest in 2010.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Here, there is no action. The federal government would penalize -- and perhaps prosecute -- people who are doing nothing at all. Regulating an action is different from coercing an action. If the justices would not allow violent acts against women to be a federal issue, they are not likely to allow people sitting peacefully in their homes to be subject to federal power. It would be a radical expansion of federal law into people's lives.


Not wearing your seatbelt while driving in your car is an "act of non-action", no? And such people are penalized. The personal decision to not wear a seat-belt is likely only going to cause the person to suffer in the event of a collision (although if they do not have insurance, tax payers suffer).

People who sit peacfully in their homes can still have heart attacks, still trip and fall, etc. By not having insurance, they cost tax payers money when they show up at the hospital. I think the arguement is that they cost tax payers _less_ if they have some sort of an insurance policy, rather than none at all.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Not wearing your seatbelt while driving in your car is an "act of non-action", no? And such people are penalized. The personal decision to not wear a seat-belt is likely only going to cause the person to suffer in the event of a collision (although if they do not have insurance, tax payers suffer).


Not all states have seat belt laws...... Just like texting while driving or cell phone use while driving.....state laws not federal. Also the set belt law is not because of people going to hospital and not having insurance (they do if they are in a vehicle but i will explain later)....it is because of the result of injury to another party from a person flying out of the vehicle. Not injury to the person who does not have set belt on.

So now to explain that the person in a vehicle has insurance....if the car has insurance.....your pip coverage is in effect. Or what people like to call no fault......and also the medical portion of your liability. So there is coverage. Again another example where people have coverage for health care if injured is covered. By the way the last figure I heard was 38 million with out coverage.....not 46 and that was on msnbc.

Here is the deal..... health insurance is there to cover you if you get sick...ie cancer or some other illness. Injury's are typically covered on other fronts....ie work comp, liability on home owners, business owners, auto insurance, etc. Now there are people out there that if they get cancer they want to just die and not get treatment. So who is to say that these people are in the wrong. They can't spread the cancer to anyone else. So that is infringing on personal choice.....ie this can be considered unconstituational.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Also the set belt law is not because of people going to hospital and not having insurance (they do if they are in a vehicle but i will explain later)....it is because of the result of injury to another party from a person flying out of the vehicle.


Do you have documentation of this? You're telling me the primary reason why we have seatbelt laws is to protect a person from getting hit from another person during a collision? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't realize a lot of people got hurt because the other driver flew through the air and hit them.



> So now to explain that the person in a vehicle has insurance....if the car has insurance.....your pip coverage is in effect.


Okay, fine. LEt's not use the seatbelt example (even though it still fits fine). Let's use car insurance. So, you are okay with the government forcing you to have insurance on your car (which you just mentioned that it is there to protect the other person), but you aren't for mandating health coverage on the individual (which in theory will cheapen the tax payers burden)?



> Here is the deal..... health insurance is there to cover you if you get sick...ie cancer or some other illness. Injury's are typically covered on other fronts....ie work comp, liability on home owners, business owners, auto insurance, etc.


Sure, but I'd guess that most visits to the ER cannot be covered by your home-owners insurance. I'd like to see some statistics, not conjecture, on "where" most accidents happen, and "whom" is liable. Of course, most of the really expensive hospital visits are due to cancer, heart disease, etc. These wouldn't be covered under any of the other insurance programs you mentioned.



> Now there are people out there that if they get cancer they want to just die and not get treatment. So who is to say that these people are in the wrong. They can't spread the cancer to anyone else. So that is infringing on personal choice.....ie this can be considered unconstituational.


Here I thought we were going to have a real conversation. Do you really want to argue against the merits of a universal health insurance program which conceivably will lower our taxes because a minute fraction of people have cancer but don't want treatment. In any case, they could certainly forgo treatment. No insurance program forces you to take your meds or get a certain service done. But indeed they would have to pay for it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Do you have documentation of this? You're telling me the primary reason why we have seatbelt laws is to protect a person from getting hit from another person during a collision? Maybe it's just me, but I didn't realize a lot of people got hurt because the other driver flew through the air and hit them.


A person flying around in a vehicle will hit other people in the vehicle. Or fly out of vehicle and crash into a windshield. Many studies and yes that is why states are implementing the seat belt laws.



> Okay, fine. LEt's not use the seatbelt example (even though it still fits fine). Let's use car insurance. So, you are okay with the government forcing you to have insurance on your car (which you just mentioned that it is there to protect the other person), but you aren't for mandating health coverage on the individual (which in theory will cheapen the tax payers burden)


The car insurance thing again is for the other party's benefit. IE your liability will fix damages you do to others property. If that is crashing into another car or house or person. Liability will cover it all. Again that insurance is for others benefit not the policy holder....ie two coverages....liability only or full coverage.



> Sure, but I'd guess that most visits to the ER cannot be covered by your home-owners insurance. I'd like to see some statistics, not conjecture, on "where" most accidents happen, and "whom" is liable. Of course, most of the really expensive hospital visits are due to cancer, heart disease, etc. These wouldn't be covered under any of the other insurance programs you mentioned.


I could go on and on....but why do the ER forms ask if the accident was in a vehicle, at work, or at a residence....hmmmm....coverage. Every home owner has a medical payment to others on it. IE if I slip on your side walk.....I am covered for that amount...then your liability on your home owners kicks in too. If it happens at your home you are liable....period. Unless it was an unlawful act committed by injured party. But that is for the court to decide.



> Here I thought we were going to have a real conversation. Do you really want to argue against the merits of a universal health insurance program which conceivably will lower our taxes because a minute fraction of people have cancer but don't want treatment. In any case, they could certainly forgo treatment. No insurance program forces you to take your meds or get a certain service done. But indeed they would have to pay for it.


Here is the issue.....I DON'T SEE IT LOWERING TAX BURDEN. I see it raising it. Like I mentioned......who will enforce all these taxes and fines for people with out insurance....a goverment employee.....who or how will it get paid....taxes.

Here is a question that has not been answered at all.....

HOW WILL A GOVERMENT RUN INSURANCE PROGRAM MAKE MEDICAL COSTS CHEAPER?

Insurance is high because medical procedures, medicines, doctor visits, etc are expensive...period. If you don't believe that then you don't know how insurance works...because insurance pays for these things. That is what it is supposed to do.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> A person flying around in a vehicle will hit other people in the vehicle. Or fly out of vehicle and crash into a windshield. Many studies and yes that is why states are implementing the seat belt laws.


other people in the same vehicle? Earlier you said the non-seatbelt-wearer hits people in the other vehicle (i.e. person essentially needs to travel through two sets of windshields in a headon collission). Many studies? You didn't finish your sentence.



> Again that insurance is for others benefit not the policy holder


Right; same thing with health insurance. The arguement is that mandatory insurance benefits "others" because its cheaper for us tax payers than if the person doesn't have insurance.



> I could go on and on....


please don't.



> I DON'T SEE IT LOWERING TAX BURDEN. I see it raising it. Like I mentioned......who will enforce all these taxes and fines for people with out insurance....a goverment employee.....who or how will it get paid....taxes.


I've seen this 5000 times in this forum. You don't see it because you are only looking for the negative. That's why this politics site is basically dead compared to what it used to be.



> HOW WILL A GOVERMENT RUN INSURANCE PROGRAM MAKE MEDICAL COSTS CHEAPER?
> 
> Insurance is high because medical procedures, medicines, doctor visits, etc are expensive...period. If you don't believe that then you don't know how insurance works...because insurance pays for these things. That is what it is supposed to do.


Really? No kiddin'.

Read their plan. Is it just the "public option" part that gets you down? Because everyone agrees that there is a lot of streamlining that needs to be done. The republican healthcare bill will have a lot in common with the Dem bill in that respect. We pay way too much for healthcare for what we receive. 
But as far as the public option goes, if the government is so inefficient and has no ideas on how to decrease medical costs, then surely the private insurance companies will easily be able to out-compete the goverment option. Because keep in mind it is an "option." No one will use it if it is more expensive.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Read their plan. Is it just the "public option" part that gets you down? Because everyone agrees that there is a lot of streamlining that needs to be done. The republican healthcare bill will have a lot in common with the Dem bill in that respect. We pay way too much for healthcare for what we receive.
> But as far as the public option goes, if the government is so inefficient and has no ideas on how to decrease medical costs, then surely the private insurance companies will easily be able to out-compete the goverment option. Because keep in mind it is an "option." No one will use it if it is more expensive.


So if the bill will lower insurance.....why do we need a public option?



> other people in the same vehicle? Earlier you said the non-seatbelt-wearer hits people in the other vehicle (i.e. person essentially needs to travel through two sets of windshields in a headon collission). Many studies? You didn't finish your sentence.


Yes studies.....look them up. Crash test by auto makers, crash test by insurance companies, crash test by auto glass companies, crash test by the goverment, etc.



> Right; same thing with health insurance. The arguement is that mandatory insurance benefits "others" because its cheaper for us tax payers than if the person doesn't have insurance.


Again how will it lower my tax burden as a business owner? How will it lower an individuals tax burden? Medicare will just disappear?



> I could go on and on....
> 
> please don't.


Way to promote discussion right here....but I could keep telling you stories where medical coverages have been paid by homeowners policies and auto policies.......example...someone fell while getting in a vehicle hit there head on it got stitches and dental work to replace the knocked out tooth....that auto policy covered the medical costs because it happened at the vehicle. So to keep citing examples of where coverage can happen is right in with this discussion.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck,

I think we need a public option to close the gap so more people in this country are insured. I'm tired of going to "benefit dinners" for people who don't have insurance. I'm tired of it because I think Americans are better than that. I think we can pay for it and through the years I think it will be cheaper than what we are doing now. Somethings gotta give.

I've said this here before, but I lived overseas for over a year and didn't once see a "benefit dinner." In this day and age it seems ridiculous. Right, those people should have seen to getting health coverage. We shouldn't have to hold their hand. I realize that. But the bottom line is that people basically need to be "forced" to get insurance. Otherwise they won't do it. I know a lot of carpenters for example, who arguably have a dangerous job, that just risk it and don't get insurance. It's stupid. I've also seen lives totally ruined from lack of health insurance.

I'm sure you have scores of examples of where home-owners paid for an injury. But you are in that field, right? So you would hear that. I guess I'm not convinved that this is a common occurence. I'm not convinced that the admissions person at the hospital sees this a lot.

Sorry for the snide remark.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Quote:
> I DON'T SEE IT LOWERING TAX BURDEN. I see it raising it. Like I mentioned......who will enforce all these taxes and fines for people with out insurance....a goverment employee.....who or how will it get paid....taxes.
> 
> I've seen this 5000 times in this forum. You don't see it because you are only looking for the negative. That's why this politics site is basically dead compared to what it used to be.


I see my taxes going up because there is not one thing the government does cheaper than private industry. You can look no farther than Fargo to find several examples. The city is contracting snow removal, the wasteful spending on the flood projects, amtrak, and so on. Every time the gov't gets involved it costs more than it should. Every engineer and worker I know involved in state projects can cite numerous gaps in money management or just plain old bureaurocracy that drives costs to taxpayers through the roof. Frankly I just don't trust our current congress with anything, and Obama has had too many gaffs in a short period of time. His credibility is getting less and less every day, the polls are starting to reflect that.



> I know a lot of carpenters for example, who arguably have a dangerous job, that just risk it and don't get insurance. It's stupid. I've also seen lives totally ruined from lack of health insurance.


A big reason why a lot of guys don't get it is because it is not that great of coverage for what it costs. They should still get it but a lot of people don't. It is a matter of personal opinion on risk vs reward. Nobody realizes the reality until it is too late.

Another problem here is the fact that a lot of companies don't offer benefits and insurance for blue collar positions. The employers claim they can't afford to offer it. Then they drive home in their Lexus to their million dollar house. These are the same idiots who complain that they can't find good employees and then whine when the union comes in.

I still am not sold on a public option. I would like to see more regulations first. Starting with tort reform and then moving on to providers and insurance companies. Cleaning up the tort process will get rid of a whole bunch of excuses for raising costs. There needs to be less litigation in our whole nation, especially in healthcare. Then the providers need to be looked at. Then go to the insurance companies.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

seabass said:


> Chuck,
> 
> I think we need a public option to close the gap so more people in this country are insured. I'm tired of going to "benefit dinners" for people who don't have insurance.


When my dad got cancer, we had insurance, but bot much so we looked else where for treatment and Dad enrolled in experiment treatment and we got everything paid for. There are options out there but people don't take advantage of them.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

The problem with the gov't option is the cost.

I would be all for mandating everyone have insurance, private insurance, that's fine, just like car insurance.

Then we get into the whole pre-existing condition issue. Sure the guy/gal that has an issue, looses his job which he had insurance, and then can't get coverage elsewhere - there should be something there in the law.

But the guy that is 350, high blood pressure, etc. Why should he get insurance for the same cost as a healthy person automatically? That is why the costs are going to skyrocket. The CBO says in its current form the bill will *raise premiums*. On average a family of 4, making 80,000 will pay over *10,000 in premiums! That's premiums*, not even getting into deductables. I'm sorry, that is not even close to acceptable. My father, whom has had a triple bypass, and diabeties, doesn't even pay that.

Why does the bad driver with numerous accidents/tickets have to pay higher premiums than the good driver with none? How long until we are debating that on here if we head down this road with healthcare.

Heck, why stop there, why is everything unfair? Why do I have to special order most of my size 15 shoes, thats not fair, while everyone else can get theirs at a lower cost in almost every store?

Why does my neighbor get a better boat than me?

Why does he have a better pickup?

ETC ETC.

That my friends is why socialism is doomed to fail from it's onset. There is no incentive to do better than anyone else, so it takes all the incentive out of society and becomes it's downfall.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

There is no Constitutional Authority to force any American to purchase anything simply because they exist.

If that is the case and the Federal Government can force Americans to do something simply because they exist ... there is no longer a need for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Folks can complain as they please about how they think things *ought to be* for the sake of humanity ... but if the Federal Government has this type of control we have forfeited Personal/Individual Freedom and Liberty in all forms of its existence.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

TK33 said:


> > Quote:
> > I DON'T SEE IT LOWERING TAX BURDEN. I see it raising it. Like I mentioned......who will enforce all these taxes and fines for people with out insurance....a goverment employee.....who or how will it get paid....taxes.
> >
> > I've seen this 5000 times in this forum. You don't see it because you are only looking for the negative. That's why this politics site is basically dead compared to what it used to be.
> ...


I wish I remembered the exact figures, but tort reform is a much smaller % of health care costs that everyone makes it out to be. Sure, there should be some things done with tort-related expenses but the lion's share falls elsewhere else. I'll look for my source on this.

I guess the government should have a business model more like other great American private companies... you know, like WordCom, Enron, etc., etc. :lol: It's easy to point a finger at the government (in)efficiency, but dont' think for a minute that for-profit private companies are the panacea for everything that is wrong with America.

Your example of the employer supposedly not being able to afford insurance for his blue collar workers is exactly the point of mandating some level of coverage for medium-sized businessess. The carpenter gets hurt and we have to pay for it.


----------



## whistler312 (Jul 15, 2009)

seabass said:


> The carpenter gets hurt and we have to pay for it.


Worker's Comp pays for it! That's who!


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Itâ€™s kind of ironic that some compare the requirement to have Auto Insurance to being required to have health insurance.

*You are not required *to have Auto insurance! Unless you own a car, etc. It lowers your liability (theoretically) from a claim against you for being the cause of an accident. It also covers medical expenses for the claimant. Then to get you to buy it (years ago before it was mandatory) the Insurance companies included your medical costs and damages to your car so you werenâ€™t just paying for the other guys problems.

*You are not required* to have Home Owners Insurance! Unless you own a house with a mortgage. Itâ€™s only required by the mortgage company.

*You are not required *to have Life Insurance! Unless you want to provide some financial benefits to someone.

*You are not required *to have Disability Insurance! Unless you want to have the security of income if you are unable to work.

*You are not required *to have Health Insurance! Unless you want to offset costs of an illness or injury that happens to you.

Maybe we should have mandatory Disability Insurance with a â€œpublic optionâ€


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a cost about this bill that people are not thinking of....

The cost to make sure everyone is covered. Think about with the auto insurance thing....you know that 1 in 4 cars on the road does not have auto insurance. The Goverment is doing a great job at enforcing that law.....the fines are great too. :eyeroll: Also why do you think portion of your auto coverage is for under insured and uninsured motorists.

So to make sure people have to have insurance they will have to make jobs which will increase the tax burden on the american people.

Here is an example that will play out in the enforcement. I as an employer have to offer insurance or pay a fine and my workers go to the PO. So I take $2000 away from your salary to pay for your health insurance. Worker A comes in and says he is covered under his spouses plan at her work and would rather keep that $2000 in salary. But by law I can't do that because I have to provide coverage. Unless I am missing something in this bill but this guy would be covered twice. enforcement nightmare.

Or even if the bill states that I don't have cover Worker A as long as he gives me proof he is covered elsewhere. Who do I send that proof to? What if he gets divorced, separated, etc.....and does not report this to me his employer. Now I am in hot water. But again marital status is a protected class in the discrimination acts out there. You can't ask that question as an employer...."Are you married". You see the problems that could arise.

----------------edit------------------------------------

Sea bass I see your point about going to all of these benefits where people don't have coverage and what not. But why don't these people have coverage? Is it because they can't afford it or is it because these people took the extra $$ their employer offered for coverages instead of the coverages. Or is it that they decided to go for less coverage in a plan they bought because they wanted or needed the extra salary. Or is it they they just did not plan accordingly.

I have gone to many benefits of friends and friends families for people who need help with coverage.....and 90% of the time the reason why they did not have adequate coverage is because they wanted the new truck, boat, cabin, bigger house, etc. Not because they could not afford it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I'm sure you have scores of examples of where home-owners paid for an injury. But you are in that field, right? So you would hear that. I guess I'm not convinved that this is a common occurence. I'm not convinced that the admissions person at the hospital sees this a lot.


Yes I am in the industry. But one of the question asked when coming into the ER is where did this injury take place. Then they go from there. It is because they are looking for coverage. Here is another thing.....health insurance companies are also looking to where else they can find coverage. That is why it is on the form. If the accident happened at a home where the home owners insurance has a $5000 med pay....that is $5000 less the health insurance company has to pay. If they want to pursue a claim.

With the homeowners.....most people don't turn in claims because they happen at a friends or family members home and they don't want to get them into trouble. To let you know it does nothing against the homeowner. Unless the act keeps re-occurring. Otherwise it is not a strike against the homeowner.



> I've said this here before, but I lived overseas for over a year and didn't once see a "benefit dinner." In this day and age it seems ridiculous.


This one always gets me too.......people compare the US to other countries. Do other countries the size and population of the US have the highway systems we do, the public education systems, the goverment wealth fare systems, the parks programs, etc.....No they don't think of that...the countries people site as being great are less in population and less in land mass. Two huge differences when comparing two countries. Then all I have to say is look at Canada....land mass about the same...population a little less.....and socialized medicine is failing.

Also what is the tax burden for these countries with socialized medicine.....not just income tax, food tax, transportation tax, sales tax, etc.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bowstring

Those examples are correct (and those that are imposed) are not imposed by the Federal Government ... they are imposed by the States and the Sates have more far reaching powers than does the Federal Government.

Even the 55 MPH speed limit was not *imposed* by the Federal Government, but it was coerced by the Federal Government via with holding of Federal Highway funds to States that choose to not set their limit accordingly.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

DecoyDummy said:


> Bowstring
> 
> Those examples are correct (and those that are imposed) are not imposed by the Federal Government ... they are imposed by the States and the Sates have more far reaching powers than does the Federal Government.
> 
> Even the 55 MPH speed limit was not *imposed* by the Federal Government, but it was coerced by the Federal Government via with holding of Federal Highway funds to States that choose to not set their limit accordingly.


I remember that 55 mph deal, I think some states like montanna didn't fall for it.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bowstring, decoydummy, Chuck, (et al),

I agree with you. I certainly do not like the idea of goverment imposing on my civil liberties. The caveat here is that we pay for the uninsured anyway. So if we can make it cheaper, then I'm for it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> Bowstring, decoydummy, Chuck, (et al),
> 
> I agree with you. I certainly do not like the idea of goverment imposing on my civil liberties. The caveat here is that we pay for the uninsured anyway. So if we can make it cheaper, then I'm for it.


Then subsidise the insurance companies or something, but keep the government control out of it.

I noticed you mentioned benefits for the uninsured. Some I don't go to. Example: Man and woman living together. Woman makes $60K. Man makes $300K. Man has value of $5Million. Woman has no insurance. She has lived with the guy for 20 years, do you think the rich jerk should chip in on her medical expenses?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > Bowstring, decoydummy, Chuck, (et al),
> ...


Yes, I wouldn't go to that one either... I also have a personal example of something similar to that. Irritating.

I'm looking forward to seeing the republican plan on health care. I'm certainly not tethered to any politifcal ideology on this. I want whats best for all of us.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'm looking forward to seeing the republican plan on health care. I'm certainly not tethered to any politifcal ideology on this. I want whats best for all of us.


I think we are all closer to agreeing than we may think. I simply want to keep power out of Obama, Nancy, and Reid's hands. They scare the heck out of me. I seriously do worry about Obama and the United Nations treaty that I posted on another thread. I seriously have no doubt that these people are Marxist and will plunge us into socialism or worse given half a chance. 
We should not trust the democrats or republicans in Washington. There are only a handful there who truthfully are there to serve this nation and not simply themselves.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The caveat here is that we pay for the uninsured anyway. So if we can make it cheaper, then I'm for it.


I am all for this....one way to make it cheaper is to lower the cost of health care......not implementing insurance programs. Because how can the goverment make it cheaper than what it already is.....there is no way by what the business model is for insurance.

Here is one thing I am not sure of.....who pays for the health care coverage for people in prison?

If it is the tax payers.....cut costs there. Also the health care coverages for illegals......we pay for that....make it that if you are not in the USA legally you don't get coverage. Another cost savings measure. There are many ways to cut costs.....some are not pretty (like the two I mentioned above....they will deny care or cut care for humans.) but it is away to cut costs.

Some have stated that tort reform is not a huge cost savings......wrong. Look at it like this. Here is an example of where I live. I go to a hospital 30 miles one way. I go get testing done. They find I have an illness after 10 tests. Now they refer me to the Mayo Clinic.....30 miles the other way. When I arrive at mayo......they do the same 10 tests.....WHY...because they don't want to be liable for anything that the other hospital tested. Because if the other hospital tests were read wrong or what ever.....and mayo went off those tests now they are liable. So my insurance company has to pay for the same 10 tests even though they will find the same thing. Another reason why insurance costs are high......because of medical procedure!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck you certainly are right about the illegal aliens. They cost us billions per year. That one cut alone would reduce medical costs considerably. I wonder what the percentage savings would actually be?

When it comes to immigrants, does anyone know if we have a quota, and if so when we calculate the number of illegal aliens do we subtract that from the quota? The reason I ask is I always wonder if every time an illegal alien comes across the border, do they cheat a person who is trying to come to the United States legally?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> Bowstring, decoydummy, Chuck, (et al),
> 
> The caveat here is that we pay for the uninsured anyway.


I think it started years ago when someone with good intensions decided that helping pay someoneâ€™s hospital bill would be the end of it. Then over the years we found out that the more handouts you provide the more you have in line with their hands out!! Donâ€™t get me wrong I have compassion for someone who is down and out with high medical bills, etc. Its compounded by more needing a handout from not getting a high school education and not getting a higher education or learning a trade so they have a chance, to more single parents than you can count that may never afford health insurance, food, housing. People my age that didnâ€™t save anything or not enough for retirement. There are no one easy solution, and more government programs defiantly arenâ€™t the solution.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

seabass said:


> TK33 said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote:
> ...


I think that I have seen the figures that you are thinking of. It is like 14-17%. These numbers fail to account for the things that Chuck mentioned plus the fact that these providers and physicians are basically hedging or speculating on increases in insurance/legal fees.

As far as the whole worldcom and enron thing these are prime examples of the failures of de-regulation and government asleep at the wheel. Another reason why I don't want the federal gov't managing healthcare. I would like to see mandates on minimum coverage for all workers, I just don't want the gov't handling the insurance. Set the rules and get out.
The other good thing about minimum insurance requirements would be that it would level the playing field, especially in service industries.

If by some enormous failure the gov't handles insurance it should be done by the states not the feds. I don't care to pay for California's problems, most of which they have created for themselves.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/10/malpractice_reform_would_save_1.html
TK, your figures are MUCH higher than I find. I spent 30 seconds looking for this though. I'm sure you can sites that say something different.

http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs

This one calls it at 3%:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik1-2009oct01,0,7502095.column

Your ability to blame the government for Enron's scandals makes me :lol: .



> I would like to see mandates on minimum coverage for all workers, I just don't want the gov't handling the insurance. Set the rules and get out.
> The other good thing about minimum insurance requirements would be that it would level the playing field, especially in service industries.


I agree with you on this.

But let's see what the repubs come up with. They had what, 12 years to come up with a plan of their own when they had full control of the government. But only now after being spurred into action by the dems do they feel they need to do something.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> They had what, 12 years to come up with a plan of their own when they had full control of the government. But only now after being spurred into action by the dems do they feel they need to do something.


When the economy was flowing and very generous people did not think about the rise in prices for anything....ie housing, healthcare costs, food costs, etc.

But now in a downward spiral they are.

I too want to see what they come up with. I too would like to see more regulation and what not....but the one thing that is the thorn in my side is the Public Option. This will be the downfall of the whole system if it gets implemented. This is also the biggest road block in this legislation.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/10/malpractice_reform_would_save_1.html
> TK, your figures are MUCH higher than I find. I spent 30 seconds looking for this though. I'm sure you can sites that say something different.
> 
> http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
> ...


I see it was 6 years for the House and 4 years for the senate not 12, and they did come up with their own plan, keep government out of the health insurance business.

The major accomplishment was â€œthe contract with Americaâ€


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bowstring said:


> I see it was 6 years for the House and 4 years for the senate not 12, and they did come up with their own plan, keep government out of the health insurance business.


http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html



> they did come up with their own plan, keep government out of the health insurance business.


Right, no plan at all. There is no doubt changes need to be made.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Seabass- to be clear I don't blame the govt for the dot coms' collapse but they were an enabler. Greed was the culprit obviously.

My wife is a nurse and the #1 gripe from the docs and nurses is all the overhead and waste to cover themselves from lawsuits. The 3% number is a joke. It is a hell of a lot more than that. These are figures put out by the liberals, by the way which party do ambulance chasers and tort lawyers generally support? :wink:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

The 3% figure could only be the cost of the fraud or malpractice insurance. But what is not covered in that 3% is the example I used.....extra or redoing tests that have already been done. More people handling x-rays, medicines, medicine dispensaries, etc. All of it is overhead for the free or to cover your backside well enough so you don't get sued.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > I see it was 6 years for the House and 4 years for the senate not 12, and they did come up with their own plan, keep government out of the health insurance business.
> ...


Your going to have to give me your definition of total control of the government, G W was president fro January 2001 to January 2009.

So just any plan is the way to go? Very little needs to be changed and if it wasnâ€™t for regulations on insurance companies from selling across borders to every state and mega lawsuits from trial lawyers Insurance wouldnâ€™t have sky-rocketed like it has.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bowstring said:


> So just any plan is the way to go? Very little needs to be changed and if it wasnâ€™t for regulations on insurance companies from selling across borders to every state and mega lawsuits from trial lawyers Insurance wouldnâ€™t have sky-rocketed like it has.


I don't recall saying that just _any_ plan was the way to go. But hey, if you feel nothing needs to be changed, then there is little for us to discuss.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> regulations on insurance companies from selling across borders to every state


This is kind of the problem......what needs to be done is De-regulate so that every state has to have the same base policy. Then if you want more coverage you can buy that extra coverage.

because now a base policy in MN, ND, WI, NY, CA, WY, etc are all different. That is why companies pick and choose what state they want to do business in. Because some companies have great rates for one aspect of Health Care but get kicked in another. So they choose not to do business in that state where it is manditory for them to supply that coverage in a basic policy.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

seabass said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > So just any plan is the way to go? Very little needs to be changed and if it wasnâ€™t for regulations on insurance companies from selling across borders to every state and mega lawsuits from trial lawyers Insurance wouldnâ€™t have sky-rocketed like it has.
> ...


There are some things that need to be changed with the insurance and more to do with the reasons for higher healthcare. Many have been mentioned before. I think that is the point you are missing seabass.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Longshot said:


> seabass said:
> 
> 
> > Bowstring said:
> ...


Could be. Could also be that Ayn Rand style de-regulation isn't going to solve the problem either. I don't trust for-profit private insurance companies, sorry. There is just a conflict of interest there that won't go away unless we make it go away. I don't think they have my interests at heart, just a bottom line. I've seen it first hand. I'd also like more info besides the nurses at merit care about how much tort-related expsenses are costing us. I wouldn't expect a soldier to know how much the war costs.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > So just any plan is the way to go? Very little needs to be changed and if it wasnâ€™t for regulations on insurance companies from selling across borders to every state and mega lawsuits from trial lawyers Insurance wouldnâ€™t have sky-rocketed like it has.
> ...


You forgot "total control of the government".


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I don't trust for-profit private insurance companies, sorry. There is just a conflict of interest there that won't go away unless we make it go away.


Seabass....

Do you trust any for profit companies? Because if you trust lets say Walmart, Ford, Chevy, McDonalds, Jim's Dinner, etc.... They why not trust them?

So you are saying No company should work for making profits.....hmmmm then you don't believe in capitalism and are a communist or socialist as they like to be called now a days.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Here is an opinion article from Kenneth Paulus, CEO of Allina Hospitals.

He suggests changes need to be made:

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/63563142.html?page=1&c=y


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > I don't trust for-profit private insurance companies, sorry. There is just a conflict of interest there that won't go away unless we make it go away.
> 
> 
> Seabass....
> ...


 :roll: 
That's why I said "insurance" companies. There is a conflict of interest when an insurance company dictates whether your wife should have therapy or not because it's too expensive.... when every other medical professional says therapy is required.

Don't try to change this discussion into a "oh i get it now, He's a socialist" garbage. Lame. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> That kind of health care system will never work, and I am certain it won't keep me or my family healthy.


That is the last line of that article you posted.....so everything he wants in that article he says will never work.....hmmmmm


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't trust for-profit private insurance companies, sorry. There is just a conflict of interest there that won't go away unless we make it go away.
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> That's why I said "insurance" companies. There is a conflict of interest when an insurance company dictates whether your wife should have therapy or not because it's too expensive.... when every other medical professional says therapy is required.
> 
> Don't try to change this discussion into a "oh i get it now, He's a socialist" garbage. Lame.


I am not trying to call you a socialist at all. But if for profit is good for one company why isn't it good for another?

What did the policy state....did it state that therapy is covered....if it did you tell the company to pay for it because it is what is written in the contract. They can't dictate if it is written in the contract that therapy is covered. But with out knowing what the policy says I have no clue. But if they cover both therapy and alternative.....do one then the other. Tell the company....doctors are saying therapy is the way to go. But if you want to pay for both then go ahead....we will do both. Then have your doctors go to bat for you.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > That kind of health care system will never work, and I am certain it won't keep me or my family healthy.
> 
> 
> That is the last line of that article you posted.....so everything he wants in that article he says will never work.....hmmmmm


Ahem, chuck... read a few sentences earlier.

Bowstring, I guess I don't understand how a public option changes your insurance. You're telling me that you know the dem plan increases your pvivate insurance? I'm also curious how much you have actually used yours, but no matter.

Chuck, I was working with ND insurance commissioner but it's a tough battle to fight. By the time I would have potentially gotten somewhere, we would have been in a new cycle...


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck,

your life is at stake with insurance companies, not with Ford motor company. That's why.

BTW, I personally am against the bill that limits how much credit card companies can charge in interest. Every person knows that when they swipe their credit card and don't pay the bill, you're going to be charged interest. As long as the % rate is in normal print, you should have seen it coming. Just don't use the card. I don't want goverment in our lives any more than it needs to be, that's the point.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > > That kind of health care system will never work, and I am certain it won't keep me or my family healthy.
> ...


It might matter, because of the experience that anyone has with more claims could make their opinion different than someone with out insurance claims. I have been fortunate and have never been in the hospital. Just a ct scan and stress echo test etc. The wife has had rotor cuff surgery, some skin cancer cut out and some tests after a blackout, so we havenâ€™t racked up large hospital bills at one time. We have BCBS.

My mother had a lot of hospital, doctor charges the last year and a half of her life and BCBS paid everything 100%. But BCBS is not for profit.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

seabass said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> > seabass said:
> ...


I don't know why there has been no better numbers put out on how much the total cost of tort related expenses are. I just know that they cost a lot. You go in to the doctor, you have an obvious minor issue, everyone knows what it is, yet you still have to have 9 tests and how many unnecessary expensive hoops to jump through to get a bottle of penicillin. The fact of the matter seabass is that a lot of the nurses and doctors know what the costs are, they try to keep them down while giving everyone the best possible treatment, and it does bother them. Even nurses are subject to lawsuits, so don't think that they are an unreliable source.

At this point, I don't know of an industry that needs or should be trusted with any deregulations. Too much greed and too much corruption.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Good points guys...I'm sure if we all sat down together we'd find we are not too far away from each other on what we want and what we could agree on.

Good luck hunting this weekend gentlemen...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> your life is at stake with insurance companies, not with Ford motor company. That's why.


That is not necessarily true. Why do they have to do so many safety tests, etc. But I do get what you are saying. One thing to look at is this.....the longer you stay alive and healthy.....the more money they make. So think of it like that.



> I don't want goverment in our lives any more than it needs to be, that's the point.


This is why the Public option should not be in the bill.

From the article:


> I also know what *I don't want: a health care system built on rhetoric, politics and partisanship.* That kind of health care system will never work, and I am certain it won't keep me or my family healthy.


What is this bill built on! They don't have a final cost on anything. They don't know exactly how everything will get paid for. They don't know what the implications will be with some of the changes. They don't know if it will in fact change coverages for people in the private sector. They don't know any of this. They are trying to ram a bill down our throat ASAP. It is all rhetoric and politics on both sides. But the groups coming up with what things will cost are neutral and they are saying one thing and political parties are saying a different number.

Sea bass the things you were going through you would still go through with a Public Option. If people don't think that this will happen they are wrong. The VA system (goverment run) still has those same type of problems. That is why some people who are entitled to VA coverage choose not to go with VA and purchase Private Insurance.....my grandfather is one.

But l agree we are not far off in our thinking. My whole gripe is the Public Option. Because it will bankrupt our nation even more than it already is. Mark my words....if a Public option gets into effect we are not even close to coming out of this economic down turn.

Because if health care costs are not lowered....a public option will be paying the same amount as private insurance companies for procedures. Then if the public option is supposed to be cheaper....where will the money come from to pay for these bills. That is the big question that has not been answered by anyone.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Private insurance companies are NOT paying a high rate for procedures.

I have many, many medical bills I could show you from just the past year that would leave you scratching your head about what the hell these folks are even talking about.

Here is one example from just a couple of weeks ago.

Surgical Center billed out $1,128.00 for the use of their facility to do a colonoscopy. Private insurance contract pays $438.16 and that's the final settled bill.

Is that rediculous? It doesn't seem so to me for providing a safe well equipt place to do the procedure.

both the doctor and anesthesiologist will have bills as well, but the pay-out for services will be equally moderate.

Helk the surgeon that cut my belly open last February and removed 8 inches of my colon (and my appendix) billed out just over $3,550.00 for 9 days of hospital visits, surgery and all follow-up. He was paid $1,267.00 for it.

Much of this just seems plain old SILLY to me.

Here is a reality check ... they guy that had this on his hands (and that's his hand in the PIC) was paid $1,267.00. He saved my life and this is my colon sitting on my belly


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

you had to post the lobster pic didn't you.......


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Yeah 

I guess I just see what I see on medical bills ... then see what is paid ... and find that much of this is silliness.

Seems like Politicians taking the sacred cow and and holding it up as the devil.

Any attempt to bring the perspective back to reality, has to be a good thing.

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

seabass said:


> Good points guys...I'm sure if we all sat down together we'd find we are not too far away from each other on what we want and what we could agree on.
> 
> Good luck hunting this weekend gentlemen...


Back at you there seabass.

Now if only our politicians could sit around and find some comprimise. I am not holding my breath :roll:


----------

