Affordable Care Act

[bball]

This is exactly right.
How can a insurance company be expected to take on someone they know they are going to lose money on. ?
By making everyone else pay. That's not a free market. The first thing the medical industry needs is the right to run credit checks and refuse service.

If I filed a claim every time I put a scratch on my truck I would get dropped like a hot potato.

:clap: :clap: :idea: :clap: :clap:
You got my vote whenever you're ready to run! :tiphat:

That goes against everything the medical community stands for. Yes, there's a ton of petty medical visits, but there's also a lot of folks who barely live day to day.

Best,
There is a tremendous difference between petty medical visits and gross abuse of the healthcare system..and I know for a fact you know what I am speaking about.
Also, I think that's what the medical community ONCE stood for. Plenty of small town hospitals and physicians have closed up shop and shut it down across the nation because they couldn't make it financially. Harsh reality today is if too few are paying, you're not keeping the doors open.
I enjoy listening to folks complain about our poor, overpriced healthcare and believe the physicians and staff are getting filthy rich. Imagine how it will be when even more local hospitals, physicians and medical services are not available. It is happening daily. Like it or not, healthcare is run like a business nowadays. The alternative is not very optimistic.

 

[Bright Raven]

I agree with this. Oversimplified? I disagree. The Congress has shirked its responsibilities and to say these beurocrats are closely guided by Congress is an oversimplification. Nonetheless, rules and requlations are implemented weekly, if not daily , by non elected men and women. As far as enforcement goes; I was taught Congress makes laws, and The Executive branch enforces those laws; not Congress.

Brad, the adjectives we use are not important. The facts are. Federal agencies are authorized by legislation. Congress has extensive oversight obligations. That is why the administrators are called annually before the Congress. If Congress is shirking its duties then shame on them. The analogy of the agencies to "Kings" is not accurate. The only power agencies have is what is vested in them by congress.

Ron, I believe you may be reacting to the noun; "king" ;-)
The authors point is a valid one; namely, that men and women that are not elected by the people, are dircetly implementing policies and procedures that impact John Q. Citizen on a daily basis. That is not how our government was designed to function; AEB our current "quasi socialist" situation as well as over 100 years of initial govt history. Surely we can agree that our government is inundated with bureacracy? Perhaps, so much so that Congress can not provide effective, accurate oversight?(of a responsibility that is charged solely to them :shock: )

Let's define the discussion.

On the concept of authority. The authority that Federal agencies are granted by Congress are limited and bounded by congressional act, statue, and regulations that are promulgated under public review and finally published in the "Federal Register" after congressional approval. Regardless of the rhetoric, no federal agency or agent has the authority to act outside of those boundaries. Whether they do or not, goes to the next concept.

On the concept of oversight. With the growth of government (mandated by congress), it is reasonable to believe that Congress has lost some of its capacity to provide adequate oversight. In my experience, agencies take their statutory limitations very seriously.

Postscript: we live in a complex society. There is no such animal as total freedom and never has been except for maybe our primate ancestors who roamed the savanna. Since the birth of this nation, there was a thread of socialism woven into the garment we call America. It has continued to grow. As I have said before, it is a locomotive that will not be stopped. It is spawned by a society that seeks "the sweet poison of security"!

Looking into the future, way out into the future, when technology and science dictate how we live, IMHO, socialism will flourish.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Raven socialism is how we got Nazi Germany history may be on the way to repeating itself. Anti Semitic views are growing more frequent . May God have mercy on the generation souls that have to relearn that lesson.
Sound familiar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa ... %27_League

 

[bball]

Ron,
Your points are quite valid respective to each topic.
The video by Hamburger addresses, "who are the most powerful people in America?" This goes back to another conversation you and I shared in which you stated Congress was far more powerful/impactful than the office heading the Executive Branch. [Paraphrased] i could not make a case to disagree with you; however, you prompted me to look further. I do not question that Congress has slid down a slippery slope by allocating and delegating much of its responsibilities to these Federal agencies. I can even make a case, that in the moment, creating bureaucracies seemed like a good and necessary thing given the status of our nation. However, the consequences of their creation may have outlived their good. Increased bureacracy is bad for individual rights.
I suspect you are also correct in your vision of the future. It may not be as far off as you think. Things move at an exponentially increased rate now due to technology.
Pure freedom does not exist, but it is foolishness to trade away the freedoms we enjoy. It's criminal to trade away the freedoms of our future generations.

 

[zorro]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Where in the document is healthcare delegated?All the Federal Authority that people allow to rule their lives is illegal. Socialism isn't coming someday. It's here today, and no one seems to realize it.

 

[Bright Raven]

Ron,
Your points are quite valid respective to each topic.
The video by Hamburger addresses, "who are the most powerful people in America?" This goes back to another conversation you and I shared in which you stated Congress was far more powerful/impactful than the office heading the Executive Branch. [Paraphrased] i could not make a case to disagree with you; however, you prompted me to look further. I do not question that Congress has slid down a slippery slope by allocating and delegating much of its responsibilities to these Federal agencies. I can even make a case, that in the moment, creating bureaucracies seemed like a good and necessary thing given the status of our nation. However, the consequences of their creation may have outlived their good. Increased bureacracy is bad for individual rights.
I suspect you are also correct in your vision of the future. It may not be as far off as you think. Things move at an exponentially increased rate now due to technology.
Pure freedom does not exist, but it is foolishness to trade away the freedoms we enjoy. It's criminal to trade away the freedoms of our future generations.

If a representative of an agency is exercising the authority of Congress, the power rests in Congress. That does not seem to be the implication I see in the video. The video presents the agency representative as holding the power.

Fundamentally, we are processing the same information differently. I think we both made our views clear. Not anywhere else to go with it.

More importantly, Callmefence would be an improvement over most in Congress and certainly a higher standard of decency, honesty and integrity than others in high places.

 

[HDRider]

Run Fence, run

 

[Bright Raven]

Socialism is rooted in the Constitution. That has been recognized for 200 years. It is as "old hat" as the sun rises every morning. Start with the Preamble to the Constitution - the seeds of socialism are there:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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."

It doesn't say "I the individual". The framers recognized the Democratic Republic has to be a "social" order, a Union!

Look at the words "common defense". National defense using resources that are socially owned is a socialist concept.

The framers endorsed providing for general welfare in the words "to promote general welfare". General welfare is the foundation of our entitlement programs and has been tested in the supreme court.

Consider all of our institutions - courts, military, police force, general welfare initiatives like roads, bridges, public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc. - they are all resources that are commonly owned by the state. By definition, the state's ownership is socialism.

Postscript: I am not standing in defense of a socialist government. I am simply pointing out that it is woven into the fabric of this nation.

Any government that uses the common resources of the "state " for the good of the "whole" is defined as socialism.

 

[Brute 23]

Socialism is rooted in the Constitution. That has been recognized for 200 years. It is as "old hat" as the sun rises every morning. Start with the Preamble to the Constitution - the seeds of socialism are there:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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."

It doesn't say "I the individual". The framers recognized the Democratic Republic has to be a "social" order, a Union!

Look at the words "common defense". National defense using resources that are socially owned is a socialist concept.

The framers endorsed providing for general welfare in the words "to promote general welfare". General welfare is the foundation of our entitlement programs and has been tested in the supreme court.

Consider all of our institutions - courts, military, police force, general welfare initiatives like roads, bridges, public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc. - they are all resources that are commonly owned by the state. By definition, the state's ownership is socialism.

Postscript: I am not standing in defense of a socialist government. I am simply pointing out that it is woven into the fabric of this nation.

Any government that uses the common resources of the "state " for the good of the "whole" is defined as socialism.

That's a stretch. They were promoting general welfare by having the people in charge of the people. They were saying you have the opportunity to prosper... not guaranteeing your prosperity.

Read further in to their actions and what they believed during those times.

 

[Bright Raven]

Socialism is rooted in the Constitution. That has been recognized for 200 years. It is as "old hat" as the sun rises every morning. Start with the Preamble to the Constitution - the seeds of socialism are there:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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."

It doesn't say "I the individual". The framers recognized the Democratic Republic has to be a "social" order, a Union!

Look at the words "common defense". National defense using resources that are socially owned is a socialist concept.

The framers endorsed providing for general welfare in the words "to promote general welfare". General welfare is the foundation of our entitlement programs and has been tested in the supreme court.

Consider all of our institutions - courts, military, police force, general welfare initiatives like roads, bridges, public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc. - they are all resources that are commonly owned by the state. By definition, the state's ownership is socialism.

Postscript: I am not standing in defense of a socialist government. I am simply pointing out that it is woven into the fabric of this nation.

Any government that uses the common resources of the "state " for the good of the "whole" is defined as socialism.

That's a stretch. They were promoting general welfare by having the people in charge of the people. They were saying you have the opportunity to prosper... not guaranteeing your prosperity.

Read further in to their actions and what they believed during those times.

I don't disagree with your post.

What I am saying is that "in practice" (maybe not in the minds of the framers), this nation has bits and pieces of "socialism" woven into how our government is framed. The example of the "common defense". The Constitution provided for a "socialist" government administered national defense. Without that concession to freedom, when threatened, the nation would be at the mercy of who ever wanted to show up and fight. In fact, our national defense goes so far that a person can be "drafted". Look at all the "state" (used as a reference in general to government) owned and administered public institutions such as courts, military, police force, general welfare initiatives like roads, bridges, public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc. In practice, these "social" institutions serve the needs of the whole.

These social practices are growing. In a civilized world, societies will continue to address the needs of the "whole " as mankind seeks the "sweet poison of security". Some socialism is a good thing. It shows that a society has the desire to promote the General Welfare and serve the needs of the whole.

Granted, the intended purpose you expressed of providing the opportunity for prosperity was in the framers minds but put into practice some of those principles are clearly defined as socialism in function.

 

[Brute 23]

There is a difference between co-opting resources and redistributing wealth.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Best,
There is a tremendous difference between petty medical visits and gross abuse of the healthcare system..and I know for a fact you know what I am speaking about.
Also, I think that's what the medical community ONCE stood for. Plenty of small town hospitals and physicians have closed up shop and shut it down across the nation because they couldn't make it financially. Harsh reality today is if too few are paying, you're not keeping the doors open.
I enjoy listening to folks complain about our poor, overpriced healthcare and believe the physicians and staff are getting filthy rich. Imagine how it will be when even more local hospitals, physicians and medical services are not available. It is happening daily. Like it or not, healthcare is run like a business nowadays. The alternative is not very optimistic.

I am extremely well versed in petty medical visits. The exam I did last week on a patient that had abdominal pain for 1 hr that subsided. A mother that brought the kids in before going on vacation b/c one had been sick. I could go on and on. However, the problem with running credit and determining health care outcomes based on that will cause for delays in necessary care. Because it doesn't just stop at the Urgent Care, it moves on to all aspects of the medical world. Would we not allow people into the trauma bay until their credit has been run? Is the OR the line they shall not cross until credit is secured? Should your grandfather be denied cardiac care b/c he doesn't have the $10K for what Medicare doesn't cover? Do you want this to happen to your kids, wife or yourself? Health care is being run as a business, and it's getting ugly. Costs are soaring, and it's massively detrimental for society.

 

[Bright Raven]

Iike it or not, healthcare is run like a business nowadays. The alternative is not very optimistic.

Would we not allow people into the trauma bay until their credit has been run? Is the OR the line they shall not cross until credit is secured? Should your grandfather be denied cardiac care b/c he doesn't have the $10K for what Medicare doesn't cover? Do you want this to happen to your kids, wife or yourself? Health care is being run as a business, and it's getting ugly. Costs are soaring, and it's massively detrimental for society.

Brad/Best:

You guys work in healthcare and you both made the comments that it is run like a business.

Well, it is a business to a large extent. Most of the companies involved are publicly traded.

Yet both your comments suggest that is undesirable. Would government run healthcare be better????

 

[sim.-ang.king]

Socialism is rooted in the Constitution. That has been recognized for 200 years. It is as "old hat" as the sun rises every morning. Start with the Preamble to the Constitution - the seeds of socialism are there:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure 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."

It doesn't say "I the individual". The framers recognized the Democratic Republic has to be a "social" order, a Union!

Look at the words "common defense". National defense using resources that are socially owned is a socialist concept.

The framers endorsed providing for general welfare in the words "to promote general welfare". General welfare is the foundation of our entitlement programs and has been tested in the supreme court.

Consider all of our institutions - courts, military, police force, general welfare initiatives like roads, bridges, public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc. - they are all resources that are commonly owned by the state. By definition, the state's ownership is socialism.

Postscript: I am not standing in defense of a socialist government. I am simply pointing out that it is woven into the fabric of this nation.

Any government that uses the common resources of the "state " for the good of the "whole" is defined as socialism.

That's a stretch. They were promoting general welfare by having the people in charge of the people. They were saying you have the opportunity to prosper... not guaranteeing your prosperity.

Read further in to their actions and what they believed during those times.

I don't disagree with your post.

What I am saying is that "in practice" (maybe not in the minds of the framers), this nation has bits and pieces of "socialism" woven into how our government is framed. The example of the "common defense". The Constitution provided for a "socialist" government administered national defense. Without that concession to freedom, when threatened, the nation would be at the mercy of who ever wanted to show up and fight. In fact, our national defense goes so far that a person can be "drafted". Look at all the "state" (used as a reference in general to government) owned and administered public institutions such as courts, military, police force, general welfare initiatives like roads, bridges, public education, Medicare, Social Security, etc. In practice, these "social" institutions serve the needs of the whole.

These social practices are growing. In a civilized world, societies will continue to address the needs of the "whole " as mankind seeks the "sweet poison of security". Some socialism is a good thing. It shows that a society has the desire to promote the General Welfare and serve the needs of the whole.

Granted, the intended purpose you expressed of providing the opportunity for prosperity was in the framers minds but put into practice some of those principles are clearly defined as socialism in function.

I don't think the framers had forced Union, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, in mind, such as socialism promoting these thing by force.
It was talking more about self governance, and that We the people would see to it these things are cared for, not we the government. That's why they wrote the Constitution, to limit the government, not the people. Not to force the people into any social program, or be over burden with taxation.
Google "Constitutional Republic", that is what are country is suppose to be. Many of the "highly educated" though like to believe that Socialism (Marxism) and a Constitutional Republic are all intertwined. In the case of the US Constitutional Republic they can not, without destroying the whole fabric of the constitution it's self.

 

[Caustic Burno]

The framers worded the document in that way to unite 13 independent colonies against a common enemy.
You forget this was a Civil War.
This wasn't just against British soldiers.
As Franklin stated we must hang together or hang one by one.

 

[tater74]

Absolutely not!

Take the frivilous lawsuits, outsized jury awards, blood sucking insurance companies, and government intervention out of it and the market would drive the costs down.

And don't get me started on the drug companies.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Brad/Best:

You guys work in healthcare and you both made the comments that it is run like a business.

Well, it is a business to a large extent. Most of the companies involved are publicly traded.

Yet both your comments suggest that is undesirable. Would government run healthcare be better????

I'm not sure what the answer is, to be honest. If you don't generate revenue, there's no need for innovation. However, life saving medicines should be regulated to some degree. I think about the cost of the epipen:
In August 2016 two U.S. senators questioned why there had been such a massive EpiPen price increase by Mylan, the manufacturer of EpiPen. Concerns existed that the drug was not priced fairly for patients with a life-threatening allergy. Over the last decade, the EpiPen cost had soared from roughly $100 to over $600 per two-injector package.

Members of Congress also raised the point that the EpiPen, which is used by many children on the government assistance program Medicaid, was unfairly overpriced and that taxpayers were "picking up the tab" for the drug.
Reading this, how much are you and I paying b/c medical companies can get it from the government? I remember a few years ago hearing about a man on NPR. He went to Europe (Denmark) and had a hip replacement. He didn't have insurance and went there b/c it was going to cost him $17,000 out the door vs. $100,000 out the door here. I also know that insurance companies have lobbied for bills to be passed that medical facilities cannot give discounts to uninsured folks that are more than 10%, then turn around and reimburse at a rate around 65%. It's obvious things are out of control, but the problem becomes that the solution may be worse than the disease. You let the government get its foot in the door and then things can go downhill quickly.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Absolutely not!

Take the frivilous lawsuits, outsized jury awards, blood sucking insurance companies, and government intervention out of it and the market would drive the costs down.

And don't get me started on the drug companies.

I'm not sure how correct that assessment is. You'd have to have rock solid anti-collusion efforts, remove lobbyists, and remove patent protection for costs to be driven down.

As for pharmaceutical companies, I can hardly blame them. $500M into a drug before it hits the market, and then a limited shelf life for the patent doesn't give them much time to recoup their money. While I don't like the exorbitant amounts charged, when you look at it financially, it's understandable. It's not different than us having $40K+ into the equipment it takes to get one calf to the sale yard (truck, trailer, land, fences, etc).

 

[bball]

Iike it or not, healthcare is run like a business nowadays. The alternative is not very optimistic.

Would we not allow people into the trauma bay until their credit has been run? Is the OR the line they shall not cross until credit is secured? Should your grandfather be denied cardiac care b/c he doesn't have the $10K for what Medicare doesn't cover? Do you want this to happen to your kids, wife or yourself? Health care is being run as a business, and it's getting ugly. Costs are soaring, and it's massively detrimental for society.

Brad/Best:

You guys work in healthcare and you both made the comments that it is run like a business.

Well, it is a business to a large extent. Most of the companies involved are publicly traded.

Yet both your comments suggest that is undesirable. Would government run healthcare be better????

Ron,
Allow me to clarify. Healthcare today is managed more as a business than in decades past. When I said the alternative to that is not optimistic was to say this: in today's climate, if a facility or healthcare organization does not pay close attention to the bottom line, they will not survive for very long. Essentially, that would make healthcare even less accessible for many people(the non optimistic part). I have to be careful here because of the nature of my career path: I completely understand the position Best holds and I respect it. I also understand the system needs to be adjusted at the front line to ensure better care for critical patients and by default, would lighten the burden on healthcare in general. The problems arise due to complications with phrases such as entitlement, ignoring the definition of the word emergency, lack of self control and personal accountability just to touch on a few.
There are 2 sides to the bed- the one laying in it and those standing at its side. Both have responsibilities, but more often then not, we chose to focus on only one of those positions and how poor or expensive the care is.
I do not believe government managed healthcare would be an improvement. Ron, you know how I feel about added bureaucracy :secret:

 

[Bright Raven]

I acknowledge the history that spawned our nation from 13 independent colonies of Great Britain. All the above posts make good points.

We live with our nation's history as it has transpired. Early in the last century, our Republic went through a world war and great depression. For better or worse, that resulted in a number of social programs. The growth in social programs continued through the end of the last century. Regardless of what was in the hearts and minds of the founding fathers, those social programs have been embraced by at least an even majority of the citizenry. Including a majority of our legislators. Nothing stays the same. Examples are numerous among the entitlement programs including such acts as Social Security, Medicare, etc. It would take a major shift in demographics and political philosophies to reverse the direction the nation is headed. Based on demographics, it would seem that the nation, for better or worse (leave that for each of us to judge or decide), is unlikely to adopt a purely "fundamental Constitutional" approach in the next 100 years of coming history.