How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

SheWolf · Apr 2, 2012

lizzie said:
To the bolded: government regulations. An institution which doesn't rely on outside payor sources can provide care in a more efficient manner, and they aren't bogged down in bureaucratic crap. They provide a service that is focused on the patient, and meeting the patient's needs. I have worked as an RN for 28 years now. The more regulations we have to comply with, the more hours are spent on non-patient care related bull****.

So Shriners Hospital doesn't focus on the patient needs? I have seen public funded health programs in action. I know they have a lot of regulations, and they one here isn't allowed to give patients certain kinds of medicine per regulations. Yeah, there is a lot of crap to deal with, but they still treat the people with respect and give them proper care.

In my state, there are huge taxes private hospitals have to pay... Private hospitals have their own baggage to deal with, such as massive bad debts, uninsured abusing the services, and refusing to treat people based on their insurance and financial status. That's a lot of red tape the private sector has designed for itself to wade and cut through before giving the patient any care or trying to save their life.

I don't know how you simply reach the conclusion that private hospitals provide the best and most efficient care. If you are an excellent RN at a private hospital, then you should still be an excellent RN at a public hospital.

SheWolf · Apr 2, 2012

Dion said:
You really are clueless.

There are for profit and non profit hospitals. The non profit and for profit hospitals expect patients to pay their bills and will take anyone to collections to do so.

Medical issues are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States.

If you start your own business ... or work for the many companies who do not provide insurance and you have an accident and a few days in ICI and and another week as inpatient will land you about a 100,000 bill. There is no "public" hospital to arrive without insurance for 'people who are not insured".

The NP will will go after you until you pay your last penny and then the rest of your care will spread to others through astronomical cost.

It is irresponsible to not have at least catastrophic insurance and even more irresponsible that out country has a system that make sit almost impossible for many to have insurance or for some ... to be negligent simply because of EMTALA and other laws in which catastrophic care is given and others simply pay for it.

Ridiculous ... Do you realize how expensive "public" hospitals would be in very region that offered "free" care as you have imagined. Why not HCR ... simply organizing a system with a choice of private or public that citizens can afford. A public option payer would have offered competition to a monopoly market.

The public hospital in my area offers care based on income... so you don't get free healthcare unless you are totally unemployed. If you don't have insurance but you are employed for any reason... part time employee, own a business, or make good money as a independent contractor, you will pay out the ass.

justabubba · Apr 2, 2012

TurtleDude said:
1) I really couldn't care less what other countries supposedly think. I hear the anti gun nuts say this sort of crap all the time. Yet those same countries tend to have thousands of their citizens TRYING TO MOVE HERE rather than the other way around

2) Government mandated "charity" has suppressed private charity which often does a far better job in helping people in need rather than merely creating more dependent pawns of the politicians who hand out goodies to the supposed needy.

just watch the news, people
look at all the reports of the marches of the citizens in other industrialized nations complaining that they have comprehensive single payer health care
probably because they receive that health care at a cost not more than 50% of what it is per capita in the USA

SheWolf · Apr 2, 2012

lizzie said:
How so? What do you think the purpose of a public hospital is? I'll be interested in what you believe public care is, and where you think the funding comes from. I assure you that clueless is something I am not, when the subject is health care.

She explained how you're clueless in the rest of your post, which you cut short... Public hospitals don't pay the tab for everybody walking into the door. To get completely free service, you have to meet certain requirements. The uninsured and the unemployed and uninsured, are two very different types of people.

SheWolf · Apr 2, 2012

lizzie said:
Yes, it will work. Charity hospitals are typically excellent at handling serious emergencies. In fact, it's what they usually excel at. If I were in a serious car accident, or shot by a criminal, I would prefer to be careflighted to our nearest public facility, where they deal with trauma on a regular basis.

I sense some contradictions in your statements...

lizzie said:
To the bolded: government regulations. An institution which doesn't rely on outside payor sources can provide care in a more efficient manner, and they aren't bogged down in bureaucratic crap. They provide a service that is focused on the patient, and meeting the patient's needs. I have worked as an RN for 28 years now. The more regulations we have to comply with, the more hours are spent on non-patient care related bull****.

So the public hospitals are more efficient and more patient focused, but you'd trust your life with a public hospital when it comes to an emergency situation?

I am not sure what you're really trying to say...

SheWolf · Apr 2, 2012

lizzie said:
You live in Oregon, but you expect me to list them for you? You're an NP, but can't look it up? As I said in my previous post, there are 4 within driving distance of me. Certainly, Texas isn't the only state with public hospitals.

Then just post a link to the one's in Texas...

SheWolf · Apr 2, 2012

lizzie said:
Taxpayers and charities.

I don't think she is arguing that hospitals like Shriners don't exist. She is arguing the way you appear to be stating how they work.

The poor, uninsured, and unemployed are different from self employed and consultants making good money with no insurance.

Such hospitals don't exist to service the uninsured. They are set up to help the extremely poor... a sliding fee scale doesn't amount to anything if you're a business owner with a net income of 80,000, no insurance, and in need of open heart surgery.

henrypanda · Apr 2, 2012

Individual ruling for scotus

00timh · Apr 2, 2012

Thunder said:
individual mandate will die.

the rest of it shall live.

That would seem to be the likeliest outcome. I don't think that will even be a 5-4. although will not be surprised if it does go that way. I think most libs even know that the mandate is unconstitutional. I suppose many will and do argue about the mandates of other insurance such as auto insurance, but there too one does have a choice not to drive. the health care mandate has no choice whatsoever, so that part will go.

TurtleDude · Apr 2, 2012

SheWolf said:
You're mistaken TD. Western Europeans and Canadians aren't dying to be Americans. Have you ever been to Europe? If anything, I have seen more Americans move out of America. I know a married couple who moved to Iceland because the living expenses were so much cheaper there and the wife gets to be a stay at home mom. I also know two people who moved to England for various reasons. Some posters here know similar people.

They only people dying to come into this country are the people living in ****holes already, or live near the southern boarder and America is just close.

And btw... nobody said anything about government mandated charity or charity otherwise.

1. Private charity isn't going to fix the health care issue in this country and it hasn't.
2. Stick to the ****ing topic.

I have done a bit of immigration law and you are incorrect. and there are lots of the most productive people who want to move here too. Of course you lefties want to drive our most productive out of America with socialist level taxes

OhIsee.Then · Apr 2, 2012

TurtleDude said:
I have done a bit of immigration law and you are incorrect. and there are lots of the most productive people who want to move here too. Of course you lefties want to drive our most productive out of America with socialist level taxes

Why do lefties want to do that? I liked the productive people I worked with and some were lefties. I also worked with people where your productivity wasn't the most important thing and they had their reason for putting their first thing first.

SheWolf · Apr 3, 2012

TurtleDude said:
I have done a bit of immigration law and you are incorrect. and there are lots of the most productive people who want to move here too. Of course you lefties want to drive our most productive out of America with socialist level taxes

Your crutch in every debate seems to be that you know more than everybody else... end of discussion.

So basically this exchange has turned into a simple I am right and you are wrong.

Why do the majority of Europeans have little to no admiration for America? If what you're saying is true, then the discussion in Europe would be to move towards American policies, as opposed to criticizing everything American.

cpwill · Apr 5, 2012

SheWolf said:
Why do the majority of Europeans have little to no admiration for America?

because it is human nature to dislike a more powerful entity upon which you are dependent?

critiquing the US is no-risk all-gain for europeans. They get to tell themselves they are "now" morally superior, while at the same time benefiting from American hegemony.

radcen · Apr 7, 2012

cpwill said:
because it is human nature to dislike a more powerful entity upon which you are dependent?

critiquing the US is no-risk all-gain for europeans. They get to tell themselves they are "now" morally superior, while at the same time benefiting from American hegemony.

:lol: Certainly not politically correct, but there is some truth to this.

Luna Tick · Apr 7, 2012

The mandate will be struck down. Then a newly re-elected Obama will use budget reconciliation to pass an automatic public option to replace the mandate. With that, anyone who doesn't opt out by buying private insurance will be automatically enrolled in the public option and pay taxes to support it. And the right will scream, demanding that that be overturned. However, it won't.

Blue Dog · Apr 7, 2012

5 to 4 individual mandate is unconstutional. The Commerce Clause was never meant to force people to buy a product or service at the national level.

radcen · Apr 7, 2012

Blue Dog said:
5 to 4 individual mandate is unconstutional. The Commerce Clause was never meant to force people to buy a product or service at the national level.

Well, yeah, but the Commerce Clause was never meant to justify a lot of things that it now justifies.

How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?