Petition to Repeal the Law Nobody Read

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1346083 wrote: Y'know, when you snip something, it doesn't make the original post go away as if you'd interrupted me in conversation. Anyone can read my post to get the context.

A bill like it would not make its way to the Texas state legislature because it is a national healthcare program. As I said earlier, that objection alone is enough for me to dismiss it.I wasn't trying to make anything seem to 'go away'. My point is that if this bill was tailored as a state bill, you would not know the difference since you are unfamiliar with the contents of the bill. It's already been established that the law is constitutional, and you haven't been able to dispute that fact, so I've moved beyond that argument, where you, in your typical obstinate way, cannot.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1346085 wrote: It's already been established that the law is constitutional, It has?? Already? It didn't even make the news. Of course, I'm pretty busy & could have missed it. What was the case?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1346135 wrote: It has?? Already? It didn't even make the news. Of course, I'm pretty busy & could have missed it. What was the case?I mean in this discussion. You asked where in the consitution the law quaifies, yaaarrrgg answered you, you did not dispute his claim - done deal. Next!

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1346137 wrote: I mean in this discussion. You asked where in the consitution the law quaifies, yaaarrrgg answered you, you did not dispute his claim - done deal. Next!Opinions only. Nothing is "established." I state my opinion, you state yours. I was unaware that the last one to post was somehow proven "right".

But even if the Supreme Court adopts the convoluted overstretched definitions yarg supports (and why not? It's happened before), "legal" doesn't make "right" or "best". History is rife with abuses and misuses that are declared "legal". Any system is better if it is smaller & easier to control or change. Huge national bureaucracies are notoriously wasteful and difficult to change or improve. Fifty systems can compare efficacies of different practices and bechmark off the best. One system can't do that and we should therefore generally avoid national programs in favor of state-run programs.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1346050 wrote: Rates were going through the roof without the law, remember the 30% increases the insurance industry was threatening during the debate of the law? Those increases disappeared after this law went into effect. Coincidence? You tell me.

What is driving rates up is the ever increasing costs associated with health care. Three years ago when I lost my finger tip the hospital wanted to treat me in the operating room. When I asked how much that would cost, I was told $12,000.00 for the use of the operating room itself, at which point I told them (since I was uninsured at that time) if they didn't fix me up in the room I was in, I would walk out and take care of it myself. They took care of me outside the operating room and it all still cost me somewhere in the neighborhood of $4,000.00, which was reduced from $7,000.00 since I paid cash.


Wow, I had that happen to me in Maine a few years back.

The doc sewed the tip back on right there in his office, and charged me 10 bucks for the stitches, and 15 for the local.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1346141 wrote: Wow, I had that happen to me in Maine a few years back.

The doc sewed the tip back on right there in his office, and charged me 10 bucks for the stitches, and 15 for the local.The surgeon said mine could not be sewn back so the bone had to be cut off. I should say, it wasn't really just the tip, it was the top third of the finger. Besides the 4 grand I paid the hospital, the surgeon was an addl $1,800.00 which was a cash discount reduced from $3,000.00. It took all of 90 minutes for the actual procedure.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1346139 wrote: Opinions only. Nothing is "established." I state my opinion, you state yours. I was unaware that the last one to post was somehow proven "right".

But even if the Supreme Court adopts the convoluted overstretched definitions yarg supports (and why not? It's happened before), "legal" doesn't make "right" or "best". History is rife with abuses and misuses that are declared "legal". Any system is better if it is smaller & easier to control or change. Huge national bureaucracies are notoriously wasteful and difficult to change or improve. Fifty systems can compare efficacies of different practices and bechmark off the best. One system can't do that and we should therefore generally avoid national programs in favor of state-run programs.


Overstretched definition? I just posted the one from:

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Welfare means health, happiness, prosperity. How then does "welfare" not include things like nutrition and healthcare?

Many Americans were focused on Russia (and Communism) for most of this century as the greatest threat, but how many people did the Russians kill in comparison to something like preventable disease?

If you want to talk about the founders, how about Jefferson? Jefferson viewed defense in a broader sense than just playing military games. He understood that economic problems may pose more danger than external threats:

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.




(Jefferson's 28 May 1816 to John Taylor)

ETA: there's no reason federal law can't be implemented at the state level. For example, the USG defines a mandate and provides funding, and the states work out the details. No reason to pit state government against federal government; they have to work together.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1346154 wrote: there's no reason federal law can't be implemented at the state level. For example, the USG defines a mandate and provides funding, and the states work out the details. No reason to pit state government against federal government; they have to work together.There's no reason for the federal gov't to mandate that the states do anything at all. That, imo, is overreach. Intrastate issues should be left to the people of the state and them alone.



If you worry about funding, can grit my teeth and tolerate the states sending proportional taxes to Washington for redistribution to the poorer states, but with no strings attached. State legislatures are perfectly capable of making budgetary decisions without some congressman from another state's opinions.

[LarsMac]

If the "States' Rights" advocates had their way, y'all in Texas would still have the nigger slaves picking yer cotton for you.

That battle was fought in the 1860's, and again in 1960's.

"States' Rights" lost.

The Federal Government has proved its right to dictate policy when it determines that the states are not taking care of business.

[LarsMac]

That is not to say that I believe they never overstep the boundaries of said right.

[Accountable]

LarsMac;1346362 wrote: If the "States' Rights" advocates had their way, y'all in Texas would still have the nigger slaves picking yer cotton for you.

That battle was fought in the 1860's, and again in 1960's.

"States' Rights" lost.

The Federal Government has proved its right to dictate policy when it determines that the states are not taking care of business."Right"?? As in my shoving a loaded gun in your nose proves my right to take your money? Please. And I'm sure you're right. Time would have stopped cold if Lincoln hadn't violated the very constitution he swore to defend. :yh_eyerol

Got a valid comment?



LarsMac;1346363 wrote: That is not to say that I believe they never overstep the boundaries of said right.Such as now.

[LarsMac]

No, not "such as now"

Since you have not read the bill being debated though, you have only hearsay to support your argument that the bill violates any constitutional law.

As for Lincoln, that, obviously is fodder for another thread.

Bottom line, the Federalists won.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1346365 wrote: Such as now.


What part of the law violates the Constitution?

You might be basing your opinion on something like the Federalist papers? Ron Paul seems to think these documents are the Constitution. But it's just the view of some founders, and has no legal standing. Taking a small sample of views doesn't hold much water, because the founders generally didn't agree on a whole lot. They couldn't even agree if black *people* were actually people or not. There were a wide array of opinions that led to the basic framework of U.S. law.

Where in the Constitution (the real one) does it say that Congress CANNOT levy taxes, or use that money towards the health, happiness, or prosperity of the U.S.?

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1346410 wrote: What part of the law violates the Constitution?

You might be basing your opinion on something like the Federalist papers? Ron Paul seems to think these documents are the Constitution. But it's just the view of some founders, and has no legal standing. Taking a small sample of views doesn't hold much water, because the founders generally didn't agree on a whole lot. They couldn't even agree if black *people* were actually people or not. There were a wide array of opinions that led to the basic framework of U.S. law.

Where in the Constitution (the real one) does it say that Congress CANNOT levy taxes, or use that money towards the health, happiness, or prosperity of the U.S.?
The powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated. If we collectively want the government to parent us in our health care decisions then we should first amend the Constitution to delegate that power.

Don't bother responding. I'm not sure why I bothered.

The question of constitutionality aside, it's bad policy. I explained why earlier in this thread.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1346443 wrote: The powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated. If we collectively want the government to parent us in our health care decisions then we should first amend the Constitution to delegate that power.

Don't bother responding. I'm not sure why I bothered.

The question of constitutionality aside, it's bad policy. I explained why earlier in this thread.Where do you get the idea of "parenting" when all we're talking about is who provides either the service or the insurance?

Do you deny the welfare clause is valid? And how do you interpret it?

Or are you going to continue to skirt those questions? If you continue to insist that you won't answer those questions then I too don't know why you bother. You seem to argue simply for the sake of arguing since you refuse to help us understand your position by clarifying your interpretation.

[LarsMac]

Accountable;1346443 wrote: The powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated. If we collectively want the government to parent us in our health care decisions then we should first amend the Constitution to delegate that power.

Don't bother responding. I'm not sure why I bothered.

The question of constitutionality aside, it's bad policy. I explained why earlier in this thread.


Well, you have certainly made your opinion on the matter clear enough, but you have also shown, IMHO, your lack understanding and lack of respect for both Constitutional Law and the Legal Code of the USA.

I believe that you base your opinion on the opinions of others who have read no more that you have about the law to which you object.

You are correct in one point. There really seems little point to our conversation. I will stand down, for now.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1346446 wrote: You seem to argue simply for the sake of arguing since you refuse to help us understand your position


LarsMac;1346448 wrote: Well, you have certainly made your opinion on the matter clear enough


The question of constitutionality aside, it's bad policy. I explained why earlier in this thread.

[LarsMac]

gmc;1345971 wrote: posted by larsmac



Not sure what you mean about penalties for abusing the system. Our system is not perfect but it's better than yours. You should really stop looking at the faults in other countries system of healthcare you can highlight and just concentrate on what you actually want for yourselves.

It's quite simple.

Do you believe everybody should have access to healthcare when they need it.

Yes or No.

If the answer is no and you don't care then you just let them suffer and die.

If the answer is Yes then how do you provide for it?

If you decide everybody should pay their way then how do you cater for those who simply can't afford it? If you think they should not recieve ab-ny help then just let them suffer and die. Also accept the reality that if for any reason you lose your healthcare you will be one of those left in the ****. That is the reality of what seems to happen in the states. It always amuses me that those right wingers that think welfare a nonsense never seem to believe they might become unemployed or lose their wealth for any reason. That people are poor because they choose to be doesn't really stand much examination.



If you do care then you need to have some kind of provision that takes no account of a person wealth when allocating treatment. You need kind of non judgemental aid system, charity doesn't work you need government to help finance and organise it, not run just provide the means. Having a healthy population is fundamental to a successful capitalist economy it's enlightened self interest to care for the nations health and was being advocated long before the term socialist was even coined. Go read up on it if you don't believe me. Just have a look at the effect on the economy the lack of healthcare is actually having. It's not the cost of something so much as the value of it that really matters.

What really started social reform in the UK was the realisation during the boer war that 40-60% of males in the cites were not actually fit enough for military service. when it got started our long trail to the welfare state had bugger all to do with socialism.

I don't know why you have such a debate about this in the states. If you don't care about the well-being of society as a whole or think it doesn't actually matter come right out and just say so and then see how the voting goes.

Your constitution originally didn't give the vote to people without property, women or slaves. It's not idea of changing the constitution with the times that is the problem is it?


GMC,

Firstly, I apologize if you were offended by that comment from me. No offense was intended.

It was actually a straight-forward comment.

I know that I hear from my Brit co-workers and friends about abuses to the system, and delays in service.

The system, by nature, is subject to abuses, and like any system, has some difficulties.

To answer your questions, Yes, I believe that everyone should have access to basic healthcare, particularly children.

I also think that most systems devised, so far, are not perfect, and can be improved.

The new laws inacted in the US will go far to make healthcare affordable to all US citizens, and to foreigners living here. Yes, it still needs work, but finally, we have something in place that will help.

I also believe that everyone should pay their way, but acknowledge that not all can do so, and we need to find a way to provide at least the basic healthcare to these people, and especially their children.

I believe that you and I are on the same page on this subject.

[gmc]

LarsMac;1346460 wrote: GMC,

Firstly, I apologize if you were offended by that comment from me. No offense was intended.

It was actually a straight-forward comment.

I know that I hear from my Brit co-workers and friends about abuses to the system, and delays in service.

The system, by nature, is subject to abuses, and like any system, has some difficulties.

To answer your questions, Yes, I believe that everyone should have access to basic healthcare, particularly children.

I also think that most systems devised, so far, are not perfect, and can be improved.

The new laws inacted in the US will go far to make healthcare affordable to all US citizens, and to foreigners living here. Yes, it still needs work, but finally, we have something in place that will help.

I also believe that everyone should pay their way, but acknowledge that not all can do so, and we need to find a way to provide at least the basic healthcare to these people, and especially their children.

I believe that you and I are on the same page on this subject.


No offence taken. It's more the cultural divide causes translation difficulties sometimes. I didn't know what you meantbny penalties for abusing the system that's all. People do abuse it and there are problems but no one gets kicked out the system.

I find these discussion amongst you all interesting It's hard to work out where american attitudes come from sometimes Americans really do have a completely different way of looking at things like healthcare that quite frankly is strange. I don't understand why anyone would prefer a private system to a proper welfare system.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1346457 wrote: The question of constitutionality aside, it's bad policy. I explained why earlier in this thread.Perhaps you'll have better luck with that argument.

FWIW, I had my first appointment with the VA, and even though it's only been one visit, I've got to tell ya, the American people are crazy for not wanting health care like I now have (it's socialized health care), no wonder all those tea-baggers are screaming not to touch their Medicare. Funny thing is that the people who dis socialized medicine believe it's good enough for our veterans - strange, isn't it.

When I would go to my former health facility, it sometimes seemed as though it was a bother for some of the staff to wait on me, and many of them seemed to not enjoy their job, but I didn't get that impression with the VA, everyone is hopping around working hard. I think perhaps the reason is that the bottom line doesn't matter.

The care I'm receiving would probably cost me in the neighborhood of at least four to five hundred dollars a month. My wife, who has very good insurance from her employer can't even touch this, and they quoted us $249.00 per bi-weekly pay period to extend coverage to me. My wife pays $40.00 per pay period.

[Ahso!]

Accountable, lets review a little. First you began this thread stating (by the title) that the law was not read by anyone (assuming you meant the people in congress who passed it) but you've yet to explain how you came to that conclusion; Second, you dispute the constitutionality of the law, which an explanation was offered to you, which you reject, but refuse to explain on what grounds you dispute the clause given.

Help us out here.

[Accountable]

Asked and answered. I'm not responsible to make you accept it.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1346494 wrote: Asked and answered. I'm not responsible to make you accept it.The only thing I recall is your claim that yaaarrrgg's interpretation was wrong, but you failed to offer a proper one. I'm sorry, I must have missed your answer on why the Welfare Clause does not apply, would you mind pointing me to it?

[flopstock]

Va. federal judge strikes down health care law - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

[Ahso!]

flopstock;1346569 wrote: Va. federal judge strikes down health care law - Politics - More politics - msnbc.comI read that before. Well, that makes it two judges who do not see constitutional problems and one who does. It won't have any immediate impact on anything as those provisions affected don't take effect until 2014. This will undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court and offer Roberts and Alito the opportunity to legislate from the bench again. We'll see what happens.

At least we don't hear of any threats on the lives of judges and their families who rule against progressive causes.

[Scrat]

I can't say I have a problem with repealing the bill. It's not the solution to our problems, We need what Canada and Britain have, just make sure it's as efficient as possible and doesn't waste money.

The latter is the hard part.

[LarsMac]

Scrat;1346599 wrote: I can't say I have a problem with repealing the bill. It's not the solution to our problems, We need what Canada and Britain have, just make sure it's as efficient as possible and doesn't waste money.

The latter is the hard part.


Oh, right. The efficient part is easy.

[Scrat]

No Lars, I don't think it would be easy. There is so much fraud and abuse in the system now it boggles the mind. I personally would start with lawsuits. Doctors are human, they sometimes make mistakes as do their nurses and assistants. Then there is the responsibility of the patients. Why should a chronic alcoholic be entitled to a liver transplant? What about the people that bring themselves to the hospital for every little sniffle?

We need to bring the neighborhood doctor back, the kind that comes to your house BEFORE you go to the hospital. He/she would be well equipped for the small things. You shouldn't have to go to a hospital for minor wounds, coughs and the like. In Belarus a doctor comes by (often with a nurse) and looks at the problem. If it's bad enough you'll go to the hospital. If he can fix the problem he will. I know a guy who had 15 stitches put in his hand in his living room.

We need to find out what treatments really work and which are of dubious value, and make some hard decisions. A treatment that costs 100k and only puts off the inevitable a few months is not worth it.

We as individuals need to take responsibility for ourselves, when it's our time to check out it's our time to check out. Most of the money spent in our system is spent heroically fighting the inevitable end. People who do 100 mph down the highway and end up in the emergency room because of their stupidity should be made to pay. Same with gunshot wounds. If you shoot yourself in the foot, you pay for it.

Education of doctors and nurses should be free, no society that needs a medical system and people to run it should make it's people go into debt for life.

I'm really all over the fence on this, these are merely ideas. My point is that we need to do something and it isn't going to be easy to do it.

[Scrat]

This is something to look into.

The Human Incubator - NYTimes.com

[Ahso!]

Scrat;1346653 wrote: No Lars, I don't think it would be easy. There is so much fraud and abuse in the system now it boggles the mind. I personally would start with lawsuits. Doctors are human, they sometimes make mistakes as do their nurses and assistants.That's okay as long as they give up the desire to become rich from their profession.Scrat;1346653 wrote: Then there is the responsibility of the patients. Why should a chronic alcoholic be entitled to a liver transplant?Because it's their right to do so? Why should a person who is going to drive over the speed limit; without a seatbelt, or jaywalk be entitled to any transplants at all?Scrat;1346653 wrote: What about the people that bring themselves to the hospital for every little sniffle?Stereotypical comment. That's what it's for if one so desires.

Scrat;1346653 wrote: We need to bring the neighborhood doctor back, the kind that comes to your house BEFORE you go to the hospital. He/she would be well equipped for the small things.That's a legitimate point, and we'll probably get there from here eventually, but not in our lifetime as long as conservatism exists. Scrat;1346653 wrote: You shouldn't have to go to a hospital for minor wounds, coughs and the like. In Belarus a doctor comes by (often with a nurse) and looks at the problem. If it's bad enough you'll go to the hospital. If he can fix the problem he will. I know a guy who had 15 stitches put in his hand in his living room.So?

Scrat;1346653 wrote: We need to find out what treatments really work and which are of dubious value, and make some hard decisions. A treatment that costs 100k and only puts off the inevitable a few months is not worth it.Our best bet for achieving this goal is to take the profit out of medicine, IMV.

Scrat;1346653 wrote: We as individuals need to take responsibility for ourselves, when it's our time to check out it's our time to check out. Most of the money spent in our system is spent heroically fighting the inevitable end. People who do 100 mph down the highway and end up in the emergency room because of their stupidity should be made to pay. Same with gunshot wounds. If you shoot yourself in the foot, you pay for it.You sound like Sarah Palin, FGS.

Scrat;1346653 wrote: Education of doctors and nurses should be free, no society that needs a medical system and people to run it should make it's people go into debt for life.You'll need to find a way to then make the health professionals commit to service for the free education, but the hard part would be holding them to it.

Scrat;1346653 wrote: I'm really all over the fence on this, these are merely ideas. My point is that we need to do something and it isn't going to be easy to do it.Yes you are all over the place, but at least you realize and admit it. You'll come to a clearing eventually.

[Saint_]

Scrat;1346653 wrote: No Lars, I don't think it would be easy. There is so much fraud and abuse in the system now it boggles the mind. I personally would start with lawsuits. Doctors are human, they sometimes make mistakes as do their nurses and assistants.


Yep, it surely is incredible. And I agree, I don't know about a cap, though. How much do you deserve if a doctor cuts off your leg by mistake or kills your loved one because he or she didn't read the medical allergies? (I'm thinking of the many times I've seen doctors prescribe a medicine for my wife that she is deathly allergic to. Luckily I caught them every time.)

Then again, is 80 million dollars really reasonable for losing a leg?

Then there is the responsibility of the patients. Why should a chronic alcoholic be entitled to a liver transplant?


Because he has the money to pay for one?

What about the people that bring themselves to the hospital for every little sniffle?


I agree that the ER should triage stuff like this. How about having a PCP on call at the ER to take them to another part of the hospital to treat them so as not to bog down the ER docs?

We need to bring the neighborhood doctor back, the kind that comes to your house BEFORE you go to the hospital. He/she would be well equipped for the small things. You shouldn't have to go to a hospital for minor wounds, coughs and the like. In Belarus a doctor comes by (often with a nurse) and looks at the problem. If it's bad enough you'll go to the hospital. If he can fix the problem he will. I know a guy who had 15 stitches put in his hand in his living room.


According to my doctor, you can't make a living doing that anymore. I'm not sure why.

We need to find out what treatments really work and which are of dubious value, and make some hard decisions. A treatment that costs 100k and only puts off the inevitable a few months is not worth it.


I agree 100%. My mother, in fact, was dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease (where the brainstem disconnects from the rest of the body, but the brain remains alert.)

She decided to let herself die rather than bankrupt our family with life support bills.

People who do 100 mph down the highway and end up in the emergency room because of their stupidity should be made to pay. Same with gunshot wounds. If you shoot yourself in the foot, you pay for it.


Heck, I'd like to find the criminals that shoot people and make them pay all doctors bills.

Education of doctors and nurses should be free, no society that needs a medical system and people to run it should make it's people go into debt for life.


Outstanding idea.

I'm really all over the fence on this, these are merely ideas. My point is that we need to do something and it isn't going to be easy to do it.


Absolutely right.

[Scrat]

Because it's their right to do so? Why should a person who is going to drive over the speed limit; without a seatbelt, or jaywalk be entitled to any transplants at all?


Cirrhosis of the liver from alcoholism is easily provable as self abuse and stupidity. Were I making the laws those people would get bills too.

Our best bet for achieving this goal is to take the profit out of medicine, IMV.


That's okay as long as they give up the desire to become rich from their profession.


I'm in full agreement.

You'll need to find a way to then make the health professionals commit to service for the free education, but the hard part would be holding them to it.


Any doctor that doesn't commit gets his license taken away, simple as that. It would be hard to change the system, doctors have a duty to people and society. It's part of the job. Create another oath.

Stereotypical comment. That's what it's for if one so desires


Stupid comment, typical of the liberal/conservative entitlement mentality. The doctor can come to you first.

You sound like Sarah Palin, FGS.


I'm dead serious about that one. In every sense.

[Scrat]

Then again, is 80 million dollars really reasonable for losing a leg?


Good question about a cap. There has to be another way, guaranteed employment?

I agree that the ER should triage stuff like this. How about having a PCP on call at the ER to take them to another part of the hospital to treat them so as not to bog down the ER docs?


We have that here in Wa state, it does a little good when it comes to saving money and time as compared to the old way. The key is to get qualified people to come to the patient at home. We had a study done here with the Danes. It seems that when a patient steps into a clinic or hospital, costs go up dramatically.

According to my doctor, you can't make a living doing that anymore. I'm not sure why.


Depends on what you consider "making a living" I guess.

[LarsMac]

Scrat;1346653 wrote: No Lars, I don't think it would be easy. There is so much fraud and abuse in the system now it boggles the mind. I personally would start with lawsuits. Doctors are human, they sometimes make mistakes as do their nurses and assistants. Then there is the responsibility of the patients. Why should a chronic alcoholic be entitled to a liver transplant? What about the people that bring themselves to the hospital for every little sniffle?

We need to bring the neighborhood doctor back, the kind that comes to your house BEFORE you go to the hospital. He/she would be well equipped for the small things. You shouldn't have to go to a hospital for minor wounds, coughs and the like. In Belarus a doctor comes by (often with a nurse) and looks at the problem. If it's bad enough you'll go to the hospital. If he can fix the problem he will. I know a guy who had 15 stitches put in his hand in his living room.

We need to find out what treatments really work and which are of dubious value, and make some hard decisions. A treatment that costs 100k and only puts off the inevitable a few months is not worth it.

We as individuals need to take responsibility for ourselves, when it's our time to check out it's our time to check out. Most of the money spent in our system is spent heroically fighting the inevitable end. People who do 100 mph down the highway and end up in the emergency room because of their stupidity should be made to pay. Same with gunshot wounds. If you shoot yourself in the foot, you pay for it.

Education of doctors and nurses should be free, no society that needs a medical system and people to run it should make it's people go into debt for life.

I'm really all over the fence on this, these are merely ideas. My point is that we need to do something and it isn't going to be easy to do it.


I agree with your final point, specifically.

The law that was enacted does do something, and there are several provision that are worth saving. I can't say I agree with everything in the healthcare reform bill, but, overall, it makes some good changes to the system.

one item, there requirements for specific levels of health insurance, and the most basic one covers preventative care for children, and urgent care (non-life-threatening, but requiring immediate attention) for people, in hopes of taking the burden of these types of care needs out of the ER.

[yaaarrrgg]

Scrat;1346759 wrote: Cirrhosis of the liver from alcoholism is easily provable as self abuse and stupidity. Were I making the laws those people would get bills too.


Yeah, but if you want, you can blame everyone for every health problem. You have a respiratory infection? Why didn't you wear a facial mask everywhere like Michael Jackson?



IMO the brewing company is as much responsible for their product killing people, as the person addicted to it. Why not bundle in a tax on products that cause known medical problems? It might be better to stem the abuse early, than to try to squeeze money out of a dying person. That, and the tax would pay for the liver.

Or would the industries try to push the full cost of the product onto the public sector? That's socialism.