posted
huh? So Relentless says health insurance is a suckers game that will take your money and Lock is saying that you shouldn't get health care because it might kill you?
LOL I want some of whatever you guys are smokin!
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: How many people die because they have Health care, that's the study we need.
hmmmmmm.......
In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA Main Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice Article Date: 09 Aug 2004 - 13:00 PDT
An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.
The HealthGrades study finds nearly double the number of deaths from medical errors found by the 1999 IOM report "To Err is Human," with an associated cost of more than $6 billion per year. Whereas the IOM study extrapolated national findings based on data from three states, and the Zhan and Miller study looked at 7.5 million patient records from 28 states over one year, HealthGrades looked at three years of Medicare data in all 50 states and D.C. This Medicare population represented approximately 45 percent of all hospital admissions (excluding obstetric patients) in the U.S. from 2000 to 2002.
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: huh? So Relentless says health insurance is a suckers game that will take your money and Lock is saying that you shouldn't get health care because it might kill you?
LOL I want some of whatever you guys are smokin!
No, I said the headline was idiotic and fearmongering to promote a political agenda of powerful elites...
I really want none of what you are smoking as the side effects are quite apparent.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i can't beleive anybody thinks we don't already subsidze the insurance industry:
Blue Shield is ousted from California's high-risk health insurance pool Its premiums were substantially higher than those of the other two insurers in the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program, state officials say. Blue Shield coverage will remain in effect until Jan. 1.
By Lisa Girion
October 15, 2009
California has ousted Blue Shield, the state's second-largest not-for-profit health plan, from the state's high-risk medical insurance pool because its premiums were too high.
The pool, known as the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program, or MRMIP, insures more than 6,700 Californians who have been shut out of the private health insurance market because of pre-existing conditions.
Through MRMIP, such people are able to buy coverage from private insurers at premiums that are supposed to be 25% higher than the market rate for a comparable policy. The state reimburses the insurers for any losses they incur.
posted
I remember being scoffed at for asserting that the penalty for not getting health insurance would be jail time...
quote: PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
I just asked and will ask again what other form of enforcement would you prefer?
I would assume as in most cases of this sort fines would be the norm and jail time would be the exception.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
isn't that normal for people who don't pay taxes?
a big concern now becomes how you maintain insurance "between" jobs to avoid being taxed on "no income"...
didn't they offer some sort of assistance to low income earners to get insurance?
i suppose you now need a lawyer if you lose your job just to make sure you don't get thrown in jail
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I have scoffed some of what you have said....don't remember it on this topic but in the interest of moving forward I will admit said scoffing.
Now, what other form of enforcement would you prefer to be used?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would prefer that it were not a crime to not have health insurance... Seems there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to demand it...
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I would prefer that it were not a crime to not have health insurance... Seems there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to demand it...
they have no constitutional authority to do alot of things they do...
they slip things in by way of "regulating interstate commerce" (for instance) which they do have under Article 1 section 8
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well....I guess it is all dependent on your priorities. I personally think that if by doing something I already do anyway in a different way can get more people the treatment they need to live healthy lives and may actually end up saving me money in the long run then another rule or two to insure the system works correctly doesn't matter to me. As long as the leash is held lightly.
Half the reason we are in the mess we are in is that there weren't enough rules and enforcements on others. If you want rules to be enforced on others as I do, it is hypocrisy to flinch when a rule is put out that could possibly affect me as well.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BF if you break the law.. what happens? Fine...Jail.. Death in that order. If the government breaks the law what happens? People make excuses and then ***** they didn't break it more.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it does not depend on anyone's priorities.. Simply stated the government has NO authority to implement the proposed health care plan. To do so would break the law.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
It is not only in the constitution it is one of the reasons why the constitution was created.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Preamble of the constitution Relentless.
promote the general welfare
It is not only in the constitution it is one of the reasons why the constitution was created.
funny? i heard House Republican Leader John Boehner "quote" the preamble of the constitution at a rally yesterday... he quoted it wrong, where do we get these idiots from anyway?:
When it was Mr. Boehner’s turn to step up to the podium he started with some red meat to fire up the protesters, then he pulled out his pocket Constitution and said, “This is my copy of the Constitution and I am going to stand here with our founding fathers who wrote in the preamble, we hold these truths to be self evident,…”.
There is a preamble to the Constitution, but what House minority leader Boehner (R-OH) was reading was the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. He obviously does not know the difference between the two. The upside for him was that none of the teabagger protesters knew the difference either.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
face it, this country has been rode hard and put away wet, and both parties are guilty as sin.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Bigfoot: Preamble of the constitution Relentless.
promote the general welfare
It is not only in the constitution it is one of the reasons why the constitution was created.
Promote... Not MANDATE... English is a wonderful language so complex with the words and letters and all... yes a joy to embrace.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
all of this is still the fault of the doctors.
i live in a small town (way less than 50,000) and our local surgery clinic just "invested" in arthroscopic eqpt...
they are running TV ads night and day onall the procedures they can do...
thing is? my (and your) insurance is paying for all those damn ads... don't get me wrong, i'm glad they can do colonoscopies and other "diagnostic" arthroscopic surgery locally, but why do we have TV ads for it?
and i'm also hearing about all kinds of other diagnostic procedures they want to do from people i know...
anybody who doesn't think the doctors are not running a blank check business should look into how many "tests" they run and who actually owns and operates the testing eqpt/facilities...
they claim they have to protect themselves from lawsuits, but they are the one ordering, and profiting from, the tests.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bull****.. this is the fault of the voters and the media that guides them. Doctors for the most part are reactionary in their monetary desires.. You are still making excuses for the governments you have elected.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Bull****.. this is the fault of the voters and the media that guides them. Doctors for the most part are reactionary in their monetary desires.. You are still making excuses for the governments you have elected.
reactionary? LOL.. they are making money as fast as they can, sure, they complain about expense just like any other business does. my doctor is seeing about four to five patients per hour. and it takes an hour and a half to two hours to see him... go figure.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The few doctors I know are getting eaten alive by insurance costs... Granted I don't know alot of doctors but I do know a few.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: The few doctors I know are getting eaten alive by insurance costs... Granted I don't know alot of doctors but I do know a few.
"eaten alive"? what's that mean? they only make 150,000/yr instead of 190K?
This spring the ASA Committee on Professional Liability again conducted a survey of 46 medical liability insurance carriers to assess rate changes and market trends in 2004. We compared 2004 premiums to similar surveys in 2002 and 2003.4,5 The average premium for anesthesiologists in 2004 was $20,611 (range = $3,958 to $62,400) compared to $15,476 (range = $4,855 to $58,089) in 2002, representing a 33-percent increase [Figure 1]. The premiums are highly variable, however, with markedly high premiums for anesthesiologists with prior history of a lawsuit, performance of higher-risk procedures (e.g., invasive pain management, officebased surgery), and for those practicing in localities with high liability risk. Mean premiums were fairly similar in 2003 and 2004, although some states experienced increases of more than 40 percent (Alabama, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire and Oklahoma). In 2002, five states had average premiums of greater than $20,000, while 22 states had average premiums of more than $20,000 in 2004. The highest average premiums (>$30,000) during 2004 were found in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia, with premiums in Florida leading the nation. Rate increases have been particularly severe when insurance carriers have withdrawn from the market in the state.
posted
BTW? i had a couple dozen tests by neurologists and anaesthesiologists.. i know exacly why they have the high premiums and no, i didn't sue any of them, but i should have
some of the crap they do shouldn't be done to animals. i have no sympathy for any of them.
my insurance as a repo man was higher
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malpractice Insurance Premium Increases Have Small Effect On Physicians, Study Finds Main Category: Litigation / Medical Malpractice Article Date: 12 May 2006 - 0:00 PDT
Medical malpractice premiums cost an average of $18,400 in 2000, down from the 1986 average of $20,106 in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to a study published on Tuesday in Health Affairs, the Boston Herald reports (Heldt Powell, Boston Herald, 5/8). Researchers at Suffolk University Law School examined surveys from 1970 to 2000 conducted by the American Medical Association's Center for Health Services Research and its successor, the Center for Health Policy Research. The nationwide surveys looked at samples of all self-employed physicians in regards to their income, practice expenses and practice characteristics. The researchers finds that malpractice premiums increased from 6% of physicians' total expenses in 1970 to 11% of expenses in 1986. Premiums fell to 6% of expenses in 1996 and then increased to 7% of expenses in 2000.
posted
Further within the Constitution under the powers of congress.
quote: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
It is necessary for all who can to participate with universal healthcare in order for it to achieve the goals of low cost universal access to quality care that promotes the general welfare therefore it is proper for there to be consequences for those who have the ability to participate but do not.
My interpretation is amateurish but I'd bet a political law professor would use a similar defense with better verbiage. I get your point Relentless that the individual is having constraints put upon them in order to serve the larger picture. I don't believe that congress is abusing their authority though.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it gets passed we will find out as you know someone will sue and the case will make it all the way to the top.
Posts: 2965 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is precedent. Government requires auto insurance.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
