Article

2010-12-14 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Lord Garth 2010-12-14 11:15|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.

Racists! This regime is despicable.

Posted by Beavis 2010-12-14 12:55|| 2010-12-14 12:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Pretty well brands them as Dem enablers.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-12-14 15:32|| 2010-12-14 15:32|| Front Page Top

#3 So, Holder and Sebelius think lawsuits are "troubling". As Daffy Duck would say, "Dispicable!"
Daffy Duck has at least as much credibility as the WaPo.

Posted by whatadeal 2010-12-14 16:33|| 2010-12-14 16:33|| Front Page Top

#4 Roughly 20 cases question the new law's individual responsibility provision, which says that Americans who can afford to must maintain basic health coverage.

The individual responsibility provision says that as participants in the health-care market, Americans should pay for insurance if they can afford it.

Gee Mr. Attorny General, I'm confused. I ain't no high fallutin lawyer er nuttin so maybe you can help me out. Is it called an "Individual Mandate" or is it an "Individual Option"? And maybe next week you can explain the difference between the words shall and will.

Posted by DepotGuy 2010-12-14 16:39|| 2010-12-14 16:39|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm not a lawyer, but Obamacare looks legal as long as Medicare is legal.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-12-14 16:50|| 2010-12-14 16:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Not exactly. While we all pay taxes to support Medicare, an elderly person is not required to participate.

Posted by Steve White 2010-12-14 17:36|| 2010-12-14 17:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Have you thought this is just a trap to raise taxes and expand Medicare and raise individual insurance choice?

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2010-12-14 18:07|| 2010-12-14 18:07|| Front Page Top

#8 "Have you thought this is just a trap to raise taxes and expand Medicare and ~~raise~~ eliminate individual insurance choice?"

FTFY, BP.

It's a trap, all right - a trap to make us serfs of the ~~federal government~~ self-appointed "elite."

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-12-14 18:49|| 2010-12-14 18:49|| Front Page Top

#9 I suspect health insurance, whether private, employer-based, or government-based, is a root cause of our skyrocketing health care costs. When the buyer of something (e.g. health care) is not the one directly paying for it, and does not have the ability to price shop, it should be expected that prices - and costs - would rise.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-12-14 18:50|| 2010-12-14 18:50|| Front Page Top

#10 There is no single root cause of our increasing health care costs. Insurance is one and in a certain sense the most important. Because everybody thinks insurance should pay for their health care. When I started working, I paid all my medical bills my self and then submitted them to the insurance company for reimbursement. Just getting a medical plan "credit card" and co-pays has been a big mistake. The customer (patient) no longer knows what things are costing and cxan't make decisions to control costs. That has been laid off on the evil insurance companies.

But there are others, government subsidization increases demand, growing elderly population that lives longer and requires more care, advanced technology and drugs, bad lifestyles that lead to costly to treat chronic conditions and inability to increase productivity (a nurse can't take care of more patients than she could 20 years ago. Caring for people takes time, but nurses need more training and get paid more.) I saw a study I can't find that found 9 major causes of increased medical care costs and none accounted for more than 15% of the increase in cost.

Putting the patient and doctor in control will do the most to reduce costs, but that means patients pay.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-12-14 19:26|| 2010-12-14 19:26|| Front Page Top

#11 I can tell you for a fact that's true, Glenmore. Back in the 1980's I had a job that gave me paid-by-the-company 100% coverage for just about anything I desired. No networks, no primary care physician, just go to the doctor of my choice for whatever I wanted.

It was great (from my standpoint); I saw a neurologist about long-standing shoulder pains; an allergist for full-panel allergy testing; a plastic surgeon for some needed (but not strictly medically necessary) reconstructive surgery (no, not a boob job or such); and god knows what else.

Now I have health insurance like we had when I was growing up - insurance for actual hospitalization, but I pay for routine doctor's visits, medications, etc. (Insurance with a very high deductible, plus a medical savings account for regular medical costs.)

The firm I presently work for splits the insurance cost with me; I pay into the medical savings account myself. My initial goal was to get enough into the savings account to cover the very large deductible should I need hospitalization. I have that now, but still just pay for any medical stuff myself. (It involves having enough discipline to put aside money each paycheck in case of small medical costs.)

Too many people for too long have gotten the idea that somehow the cost of their health care is somebody else's responsibility. It ain't - and the bill is coming due.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-12-14 19:37|| 2010-12-14 19:37|| Front Page Top

#12 Here's why medical costs are going up: Medicare reimburses @ 75% of cost and Medicaid @ 50% of cost, so physicians and hospitals make up the difference from reimbursements from private insurance.

When congress announces they are "reducing" Medicare payments, they are in fact levying a tax on everyone else's medical services.

Obamacare further codifies this cost shift by mandating a medical loss ratio of 15%, creating a fixed percentage insurance companies' take for administration, marketing and profit while the other 85% goes to medical expenses. This means the only way insurers can increase profits is by increasing medical reimbursements -- a perverse yet compelling disincentive not to control medical costs.

Eventually everyone gravitates from artificially high private insurance to a public option, and half the physician population retires.

Aren't you glad you asked?

Posted by regular joe 2010-12-14 22:27|| 2010-12-14 22:27|| Front Page Top

23:44 gorb
23:14 Pappy
22:52 JosephMendiola
22:45 Jumbo Whavimble2139
22:39 rjschwarz
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:27 regular joe
22:23 CrazyFool
22:15 rjschwarz
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:12 rjschwarz
22:06 IG-88
21:58 Grunter
21:54 Grunter
21:32 Thing From Snowy Mountain
21:13 Lemuel Ulinesing9261
21:02 abu do you love
20:51 Fire and Ice
20:43 abu do you love
20:21 mom
20:18 M. Murcek
20:15 Secret Master
20:04 gorb
19:59 gorb