Thread: Health Care Reform; States suing as unconstitutional

You spent 20 years PAYING your student loans, not completely dismantling your life and career to work for no pay at all and plunge yourself into poverty. You could still pay those student loans doing something you enjoyed.

World of difference.

And you still haven't addressed the point that I and several others have made that it would completely destroy every aspect of the economy and punish the healthy.

You also haven't told me why you have such a vendetta against the poor.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

According to my friend who works at the hospital, if you go to the ER for any reason (for instance a slight cough) they HAVE to do $2-5k worth of tests because if say, they tell you that you have a cold and give you a cough drop, but later testing found that you have lung cancer, the hospital could face lawsuits for not properly diagnosing a life threatening condition. So they test for everything as a way to cover their behind, ergo someone with no $$ can use the ER as their "primary care". Apparently there are some people who do this as often as monthly, meaning the hospital is absorbing $25-60k (don't remember her exact numbers..) for ONE patient.

This is another thing that really different here. Going to ER, for same kind of reason, and get the all tests they can take, would cause me no $2-5 (or €) bill. With public health care the bill would be € 20, and if i, for some reason, wanted to use my private health insurance, the bill to my insurance company would be about 200 - 500 € at max. Someone is making money there. I can't believe our hospitals are so much lower level here.

If the fear of getting sued is a motivation which keeps your hospitals running then you really should think about changing the system.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

hoglahoo - Nope, they can't

Yep, they can

by the way, I'll accept your willing help in paying my hospital bills The last time I was in ER, I sat four four hours to get a pill and a bill for $750 of my money (why do you say my money is damned? I think I use it wisely for the most part, but maybe that's where I've gone wrong. maybe someone smarter should be using my money for me where they say it is needed most)

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

All we're asking is for you to give back to the society which has propped you up on its shoulders all your life.

Are we still talking about states suing the federal government over the health care bill? I don't think the bill is just to ask people for charity. That is not the fed's role anyway, there are plenty of ways to help people out without having to be forced to by congress

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

in this country we believe people are free.

I too agree with this, and I hope the role of the federal government remains to protect freedom. My wallet, my choice! My charity, my choice!

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions."

No, they can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...al_obligations

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status orability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions."

The hospital MUST provide emergency treatment, including treatment for a pregnant woman in active labor. After initial treatment and stabilization they have no obligation to continue providing care.
We have signs up all over the ER explaining this.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

No, they can't.

sure they can

edit: let me clarify again, because it appears you have missed my point when I implied that the government cannot guarantee the availability of the services it requires others to provide - have you ever broken a law whether by choice, ignorance, or inability to comply?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Yep, they can

by the way, I'll accept your willing help in paying my hospital bills The last time I was in ER, I sat four four hours to get a pill and a bill for $750 of my money (why do you say my money is damned? I think I use it wisely for the most part, but maybe that's where I've gone wrong. maybe someone smarter should be using my money for me where they say it is needed most)


Are we still talking about states suing the federal government over the health care bill? I don't think the bill is just to ask people for charity. That is not the fed's role anyway, there are plenty of ways to help people out without having to be forced to by congress

The reason it cost you such an insane amount, as opposed to something more reasonable, is because you were also paying for all the uninsured people who'd been to that hospital recently and couldn't pay.

What it actually cost to treat you was probably around 200 bucks, if it was as simple as you say.

We aren't asking for charity. We're asking you to contribute to something we want to give you for a tiny fraction of what you're paying now.

As to your last point? No, there aren't. When a society gets big enough, and advanced enough, the weight of the infrastructure has to be supported somehow.

Why do you think every other developed country in the world apart from us already has universal healthcare? Because that's the most efficient way to do it. It also happens to work - people from those countries live longer than we do.

EDIT: The limitation of ability applies equally to those with or without insurance, and thus has nothing to do with this.

EDIT: HNSB - Well, yeah. No one was really denying that...? Or at least I wasn't.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I too agree with this, and I hope the role of the federal government remains to protect freedom. My wallet, my choice! My charity, my choice!

You have to pay taxes. You have no choice.

You don't get to pick and choose how your tax money is spent.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

You have to pay taxes. You have no choice.

No I don't, and I do have a choice

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

No I don't, and I do have a choice

I wish you'd actually support your statements rather than repeating contrary one-liners. You may well be correct, but your presentation makes me wonder why you're so unwilling to support your arguments.

Technicalities and what-if's don't count, by the way. To allow them render all practical discussion meaningless and impossible besides.