Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, the 2A stuff - even at the federal level - comes to mind. But, that's also part and parcel of what draws us together on INGO.

There've been various areas of regulation/deregulation including airlines and banking/finance. Very much pendulum-type swings. Within the legal community, there was even a time when you couldn't talk to people about estate planning if it involved trying to avoid having assets gobbled up by the feds when you got old. (There may still be some issues in this regard.)

It has happened. Not often enough, but it does.


They're always afraid of not getting re-elected. Especially in the House.

So, knowing that, we need to adjust our expectations, IMHO. And vote for people who we can believe in.

We did. They said they'd repeal it. We believed them.

 

[T.Lex]

I believe the hospital should not be forced to save the child, and if they do so then they must assume 100% of the financial burden without shifting those costs to any other patient.

Ok, because its INGO, I'm going to emphasize the only part that I have a (slight) quarrel with.

I see 2 problems with this:
1) It is just a different kind of .gov intrusion - telling the hospital they can't make up the cost elsewhere. In a free market, they would be able to do that, to the extent the market would bear it.

2) It creates the risk that the hospital itself would go out of business, which would be a net negative for the people of that area.

Again, I generally agree - especially with the proposition that both of our best-case scenarios will not come to pass (even if they are somewhat different). So, we are left wrestling with reality.

 

[Libertarian01]

Ok, because its INGO, I'm going to emphasize the only part that I have a (slight) quarrel with.

I see 2 problems with this:
1) It is just a different kind of .gov intrusion - telling the hospital they can't make up the cost elsewhere. In a free market, they would be able to do that, to the extent the market would bear it.

2) It creates the risk that the hospital itself would go out of business, which would be a net negative for the people of that area.

Again, I generally agree - especially with the proposition that both of our best-case scenarios will not come to pass (even if they are somewhat different). So, we are left wrestling with reality.

The reason I believe they should not be allowed to shift the cost is because the source of that expense is their "voluntary giving." What if the courts decided to "give" an extra $10 million every year in each county to the homeless shelter, then shifted those costs onto the fines and court costs of their "clients." No, that would be wrong. If a hospital and/or it's staff voluntarily chooses to do a thing it is not required to do as a business it should not be allowed to then shift that cost onto the rest of us. This is due to the fact that I can be forced to seek lifesaving treatment, and thus have no choice myself, as someone who is responsible.

Sorry. I am still mean. I believe it is unfair to force those who are being financially responsible in this situation to pay for those who are not. Again, my hope is that soon everyone would realize that they could really die and seek the means to pay.

Also, there would be NOTHING to stop the hospital from seeking voluntary donations to pay for those who could not pay. I see nothing wrong with that.

Regards,

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The reason I believe they should not be allowed to shift the cost is because the source of that expense is their "voluntary giving." What if the courts decided to "give" an extra $10 million every year in each county to the homeless shelter, then shifted those costs onto the fines and court costs of their "clients." No, that would be wrong. If a hospital and/or it's staff voluntarily chooses to do a thing it is not required to do as a business it should not be allowed to then shift that cost onto the rest of us. This is due to the fact that I can be forced to seek lifesaving treatment, and thus have no choice myself, as someone who is responsible.

Sorry. I am still mean. I believe it is unfair to force those who are being financially responsible in this situation to pay for those who are not. Again, my hope is that soon everyone would realize that they could really die and seek the means to pay.

Also, there would be NOTHING to stop the hospital from seeking voluntary donations to pay for those who could not pay. I see nothing wrong with that.

Regards,

Doug

But there is still no thing as a free lunch. You'll pay for it one way or another.

 

[jamil]

Happy to see the Freedom Caucus standing ground for us.

This bill or any bill that gets branded as "Trump Care," "Ryan Care" or "American Healthcare" needs to be defeated. Our healthcare does not belong to the government.

I don't get why "RINOcare" hasn't caught on. I think it's catchy.

 

[miguel]

ACHA is a "Dracula inspired heath beal" (sic) per Rep. Danny Davis.

 

[Libertarian01]

[/FONT]26484]But there is still no thing as a free lunch. You'll pay for it one way or another.

Indirectly I agree. However, the way I would like to see a law written wouldn't allow for "direct" payment. I would force hospitals (& all healthcare providers) to account for the cost of services provided to those who could not pay themselves, then make them take it out of their own profits. Not allow them to shift that cost onto the backs of people who have their own insurance, whether that be private or public.

We CAN do it. We won't. This is where the whole argument/debate/discussion comes to an impasse. As we force healthcare providers to provide service to those who may not pay themselves and allow them to shift that cost onto others we subsidize healthcare almost directly. My goal is to #1) stop forcing healthcare providers to provide services and, #2) IF they do anyway, then not allowing them to shift that cost onto anyone else. In other words, all the services they provide to those who cannot/willnot pay MUST be "volunteered" by them. Otherwise they keep sticking it to all of us AND don't have to worry about the value of what they give away because it will always be paid by not them. Just like .gov.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Woobie]

The only thing I can say about that, Doug, is that money is fungible. You can't make someone spend money out of their wallet and that not impact their piggy bank. Ultimately it will move the same way, no matter what restrictions you pretend are on it.

So I would say #1) No government requirement to treat. #2) Those that choose to treat anyway will be forced to raise their prices, and they would have to justify that expense to their customers or lose them.

 

[T.Lex]

Well, media reporting that the vote's been withdrawn because it wouldn't pass.

G'night has become g'morning.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Indirectly I agree. However, the way I would like to see a law written wouldn't allow for "direct" payment. I would force hospitals (& all healthcare providers) to account for the cost of services provided to those who could not pay themselves, then make them take it out of their own profits. Not allow them to shift that cost onto the backs of people who have their own insurance, whether that be private or public.

We CAN do it. We won't. This is where the whole argument/debate/discussion comes to an impasse. As we force healthcare providers to provide service to those who may not pay themselves and allow them to shift that cost onto others we subsidize healthcare almost directly. My goal is to #1) stop forcing healthcare providers to provide services and, #2) IF they do anyway, then not allowing them to shift that cost onto anyone else. In other words, all the services they provide to those who cannot/willnot pay MUST be "volunteered" by them. Otherwise they keep sticking it to all of us AND don't have to worry about the value of what they give away because it will always be paid by not them. Just like .gov.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, that's a lot of forcing by government in there for a INGOer with the word libertarian in their user name.

It's been a long time and I'm strictly going off memory here but in most locations, didn't all of them that had hospitals, didn't they have at least one that would take anyone that made it in the doors? And wasn't the issue that a few of them would only stabilize the worst cases and then transfer them to the other hospital that would take them?

 

[Woobie]

Well, media reporting that the vote's been withdrawn because it wouldn't pass.

G'night has become g'morning.

Better that Obamacare collapse under its own weight than to replace it with something just as bad that republicans would then have to own. It is better for America this way, and better for republicans in the long term. Although I would love to see a further destruction of the party.

 

[T.Lex]

Better that Obamacare collapse under its own weight than to replace it with something just as bad that republicans would then have to own. It is better for America this way, and better for republicans in the long term. Although I would love to see a further destruction of the party.

Pardon me for not being excited about nihilistic sentiments encouraging personal and national fiscal jeopardy to further the destruction of a political party that tends to support gun rights.

I simply do not share your optimism that things need to get worse before they can get better. There is near certainty that things can get worse. There is no certainty that "better" will follow. In fact, it is more likely that it will only get worse. Raiding of Social Security comes to mind as an example. And racking up more debt.

 

[Alpo]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So now Trump expects that after Obamacare implodes, some of the "good democrats" will come forward and work with him to get something "good" done for the people...

 

[Denny347]

Soooo, they are spinning the fact that their crappy bill wasn't going to pass into some valiant effort on their part to let Obamacare implode on it's own? Haha. We are in the midst of political geniuses. HAhahaha

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Republican'ts.

 

[churchmouse]

Republican'ts.

Pretty much the way it looks.

 

[Denny347]

Republican'ts.

Pretty much the way it looks.

They have the majority and STILL can't get crap done...hahaha

 

[T.Lex]

This may seem like a newsflash, but Trump's own election revealed a deeply divided Republican party. That fissure extends to Congress and was openly displayed through this dumpster fire. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.)

Really, there isn't a Republican party anymore. All that's left is a fight for the name.

 

[Twangbanger]

Better that Obamacare collapse under its own weight than to replace it with something just as bad that republicans would then have to own...

Obamacare, collapse? Lots of people keep making this assertion, without backing it up with any specifics of how it will happen. What are you basing this on?
We have to face some facts:

1) Obamacare legally compels citizens to purchase insurance. This creates a revenue stream for insurance companies - enforced by the guns of the IRS - which Insurers will fight to the death to defend.

2) The above arrangement was tested & approved by the highest court there is. >> No need for stockholders to worry about their future revenue stream being struck down in court.

3) If people cannot afford the premium increases assured by 1) & 2) above, the Law limits what they have to pay themselves, and obligates the rest of us to cover the difference for them through subsidies. The "customers" are insulated from the true cost of their premiums, and so have no real incentive to drop out of the exchanges (in fact, they will be fined if they do).

We have a Law that combines both Individual and Corporate Welfare into the same devious package, backed up by the full faith & credit of the U.S. Government's ability to print money, and the profits from this elaborate and ingenious theft-scheme will flow into corporations who will fight to the death to preserve their corporate welfare. And, the whole thing is already approved by the highest court in the land.

I really want somebody to explain to me how does this ever "collapse" or go away? Please show your work.

...Trump's own election revealed a deeply divided Republican party...Really, there isn't a Republican party anymore. All that's left is a fight for the name.

You are beginning to understand, grasshopper....