Is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" Constitutional?

425 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Capital:

In my list how did I address the adverse effects of Government interaction with Healthcare?

Other than your claim that the industry isn't having its costs covered by government, you didn't list, Capital, that's part of your lie. That industry still uses government and government regulations, doesn't it? Are you proposing anything different in your promotion of a 'free market'? But, you did say that government intervention was part of the problem in dealing with your supposed free market solution. Are you denying that? So, when you say that and, then, in your own proposal regarding the application of American medicine, you add a government involvement, how does that square in any way to your original description of a free market--or even with government intervention causing the problems in that free market?

Until you can answer that, I say it doesn't. This is not a free market, this is a corporate-government collusion--that Obamacare is just going to make worse and corporations and their shills are already coming up with 'canned excuses' that 'government caused the problem' when it does.

And, you aren't here to make any sense, anyway, Capital. You are here to distract and lie. You are one of those shills....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Other than your claim that the industry isn't having its costs covered by government, you didn't list, Capital, that's part of your lie.

From Post 183, 319, 343

If I were King:

Eliminate the McCarran-Ferguson Act. (Cost: 0)

Regulate a single Base Health insurance policy that covers catastrophic medical care ($5000 out of pocket) and has whatever base mandates that are deemed appropriate. (Cost: 0)

Allow for supplemental policies to be sold on top of every Base policy, Base policy pool would consist of every insured person in the country, thereby vastly lowering the cost of the base policy, thereby making it vastly more affordable. (Cost: 0)

Mandate that Medicare and Medicaid pay for the services they use, I would accomplish this by making the FICO tax a variable rate, based on the previous year’s surplus of deficit. Eliminates cost shifting. Makes health insurance cheaper and more affordable, less people would need to use Medicare and Medicaid. (Cost: revenue neutral)

Make EMTALA covered by Medicaid

I count at least three references in the list.

Are you proposing anything different in your promotion of a 'free market'?

You tell me.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

Are you proposing anything different in your promotion of a 'free market'?

You tell me.

Let me add the other section I did in that post:

Quote Kerry:

That industry still uses government and government regulations, doesn't it? Are you proposing anything different in your promotion of a 'free market'?

Of which, the obvious answer to that would be: NO!

Which gets to the other parts of that post:

Quote Kerry:

But, you did say that government intervention was part of the problem in dealing with your supposed free market solution. Are you denying that? So, when you say that and, then, in your own proposal regarding the application of American medicine, you add a government involvement, how does that square in any way to your original description of a free market--or even with government intervention causing the problems in that free market?

Your 'post' (that you keep reposting) doesn't answer those questions, does it, Capital? Are you being 'disingenuous', once again? Spouting off 'free market' like it says something. Spouting off 'government is the problem' like it says something. Then, saying nothing any different than having government stay in paying for (most of the most expensive) stuff, insurance companies paying for (some) stuff, and people on their own paying for stuff (even if they have helped pay for others to get it for free). No different in context (even if the content seems a 'little different') than what we have now. So, what was your point about the free market being the solution--and government intervention being such a folly, Capital? Again, you have no point. But, you do spout off the same lines as they will be used for the excuses when this set-up cannot sustain itself like the shill that you are (and maybe because at least some of the problem is that the CEO's in this industry make millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars as some have to go bankrupt for care that others get for free, no?), you'll be back to 'government caused all the problem'--not once addressing how corporations operate in collusion with government in this 'industry'--even your supposed 'exception' as the Mayo Clinic in Arizona does.....despite its supposed '800 million dollar loss in "costs" that government didn't pay'.....disingenuity, indeed, Capital, like the lying shill that you are...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:Of which, the obvious answer to that would be: NO!

Your brilliance is a marvel to behold. Why you ask, because I accept that it is Congress responsibility to regulate intrastate commerce via the Commerce Clause. I assume you understand the difference between regulating and providing.

doesn't answer those questions, does it, Capital?

Mostly because you remain fundamentally wrong. For I have NOT “added” a government involvement, that was a fantasy in your head. I have merely adjusted the current involvement to stem the cost shifting that Government is responsible for. Making insurance more affordable and people less dependent.

Feel free to ask a question that actually has any relevance to the topic and refrain from your normal fantasy driven questions. If you really what a question answer that is relevant, Try asking 1 or 2 question instead of 30-50 questions. Most of your other shit just gets ignored.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Why you ask, because I accept that it is Congress responsibility to regulate intrastate commerce via the Commerce Clause. I assume you understand the difference between regulating and providing.

I'm not even sure that 'we' have concluded that medicine is a 'product'--especially one that is purchased only by the order of the one that receives it as being only for the one who directly pays for it (vs. anyone getting it for free without any financial requirement from them--much less, from my viewpoint, any requirement from them to take any responsibility whatsoever for sustaining their own wellbeing with this 'product'--remember my 'greedy physician/deadbeat patient' assessment in this 'corporatization of medical practice'?). Have you really 'determined' this? Or, has even Congress with the interstate responsibilities of the commerce clause? With Congress, itself, taking part in having 'govenrment pay for some people's medical care' while others either have to purchase insurance policies that will cover ever potential bankrupting possibility in medical care or risk bankruptcy in obtaining such care?

Or, are you back to insurance policies being this 'marketable product' and being instrumental in 'covering more for less' (and government 'preventing' that from effectively 'happening') in the medical industry--without, at any point, explaining that prospect in enough detail to indicate that that, indeed, would work? Especially considering how, right now, CEO's in this 'industry' rake in millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars for themselves as some (who take part in paying for medical care to others by insurance premiums and government taxes and may not receive the same care themselves) may go bankrupt in receiving that same care for themselves (with or without an insurance policy depending upon the 'stipulations of their contract'--and certainly without government benefits doing the same for others)? Is that all really answered by the Congress with their responsibility to interstate commerce as stipulated in the Commerce Clause? Or, is this just another shill tactic? I suspect the latter question is more in line with what is really happening in the 'medical industry' and its involved corporate-government collusions....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

'Stipulations in insurance policy contracts' is a very critical part of this 'cover more for less' proposal that Capital claims insurance companies will do without 'government interference'. If you go back to the issue of kidney dialysis that we were discussing and look at the real facts of the case, there was no insurance claim to cover for chronic kidney dialysis. Capital tried to claim that I was just making up an excuse by now adding the word 'chronic'--but, it is not only not an excuse, it is a very important point to recognize. Capital's own site describes payments by insurance companies as being per each dialysis episode--not per each year of dialysis costs (with typical dialysis patients requiring three dialysis episodes per week). And, while that site claimed that insurance companies would pay up to $1000 per dialysis episode and 'supposedly' complained that government would only pay $70,000 per year for each dialysis patient, that site did NOT compare how much insurance companies would be willing to pay per year for each dialysis patient--that's because I suspect that there is not one insurance policy with stipulations in any contract that would offer paying for dialysis per year. And chronic dialysis patients can be on dialysis for years.....

Is there any insurance policy anywhere in America (you know 'across state lines') that claims to pay for dialysis on a yearly basis? I bet not. Just another 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' tactic of the shills. But, it doesn't even appear that 'our government' is trying to talk straight to 'its citizens' (especially the 'taxpaying consumer' ones) about issues like kidney dialysis and 'insurance benefits' with concurring 'government programs'. I wonder why not.....

And, even using the numbers that Capital's site disclosed, that kidney dialysis company receives around $18 billion a year for its government-covered chronic dialysis patients as the insurance industry supposedly pays on the order of around $6 billion to the incidental dialysis recipients that supposedly 'covers its costs'.....people need to get a more accurate picture as to what is really going on in this corporate-government colluded 'medical industry'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

I'm not even sure that 'we' have concluded that medicine is a 'product'--

Unless you live under a completely different system then the rest of the planet. It is and will always be a Product. No matter who is actually paying for it.

Yes, I have determined this. You however wish to drag it out endlessly. What I find appalling, you actually do know there are requirements placed on EMTALA. Nothing in EMTALA prohibits them from collecting on the debt.

Your second paragraph isn't even worth my time. If you really are going to be that stupid... Don't drag me into it.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Mostly because you remain fundamentally wrong.

Am I?

Quote Capital:

For I have NOT “added” a government involvement, that was a fantasy in your head. I have merely adjusted the current involvement to stem the cost shifting that Government is responsible for. Making insurance more affordable and people less dependent.

Maybe I should be more specific in my accusations to you, Capital. You have not removed the government involvement that you claim has been what has 'messed up this industry' all along. And, even with your supposed 'government pays for EMTALA' posturing that you offer as part of your 'solution' (without, at any point, claiming what to do with those patients that already receive government benefits--some that, at no point, required them to put in any financial requirements for themselves), I am not sure how you are now distinguishing that requirement in a manner that is purely 'regulatory' and not 'directly providing' as even your 'distinction' right above this remark claimed. If government is now to pay directly for the requirements of EMTALA as its regulatory imposition, would that not be directly providing? And, using that very regulatory imposition of EMTALA, what person are you saying isn't covered by that? And, how is that any different from a 'universal application'.....

Quote Capital:

Feel free to ask a question that actually has any relevance to the topic and refrain from your normal fantasy driven questions. If you really what a question answer that is relevant, Try asking 1 or 2 question instead of 30-50 questions. Most of your other shit just gets ignored.

You see my questions. How many could you really 'answer' without resorting to you usual shilling tactics and techniques that avoid the critical parts to this issue--with the fundamental one still being how this medical care is to be offered. Is it a right to be extended to everyone (and I really think that government should quit playing favorites to anyone that it grants any right to--and that includes medical care)--or a product that should go only to those that pay for it?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

'Stipulations in insurance policy contracts' is a very critical part of this 'cover more for less' proposal that Capital claims insurance companies will do without 'government interference'.

Are drunk right now? perhaps addicted to prescription meds.

You have fun talking to yourself... Clearly you are an idiot who talks to themselves. You just let me know how the discussion turns out.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Unless you live under a completely different system then the rest of the planet. It is and will always be a Product. No matter who is actually paying for it.

Boy, Capital, you really had to ignore a whole lot of my post to make that persistent claim as the lying shll that you are. Even the part right after that:

.....especially one that is purchased only by the order of the one that receives it as being only for the one who directly pays for it (vs. anyone getting it for free without any financial requirement from them--much less, from my viewpoint, any requirement from them to take any responsibility whatsoever for sustaining their own wellbeing with this 'product'--remember my 'greedy physician/deadbeat patient' assessment in this 'corporatization of medical practice'?). Have you really 'determined' this?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

.....especially one that is purchased only by the order of the one that receives it as being only for the one who directly pays for it (vs. anyone getting it for free without any financial requirement from them--much less, from my viewpoint, any requirement from them to take any responsibility whatsoever for sustaining their own wellbeing with this 'product'--remember my 'greedy physician/deadbeat patient' assessment in this 'corporatization of medical practice'?). Have you really 'determined' this?

Go read EMTALA.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

You have fun talking to yourself... Clearly you are an idiot who talks to themselves. You just let me know how the discussion turns out.

You don't really have an answer, do you, Capital? Just more of your lying shll tactics as you claim insurance companies have 'all the answers' and government is 'creating all the problems', right? Not once acknowledging how those two entities collude together against the taxpaying consumer....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Boy, Capital, you really had to ignore a whole lot of my post to make that persistent claim as the lying shll that you are. Even the part right after that:

I only ignored that with has been asked and answered a billion times that you refuse to acknowledge. You even dodge what I actually said and replace it with your concocted fantasies.

If it makes you feel better... call me anything you like.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Go read EMTALA.

Why don't you answer the question, Capital? Which person would EMTALA exclude? And, if no one, how is that any different from a 'universal application' of medical care? Even if it is a 'product'--and even if insurance policies are 'products'?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Why don't you answer the question, Capital? Which person would EMTALA exclude? And, if no one, how is that any different from a 'universal application' of medical care?

It excludes no one.... It doesn't prohibit the extracting of payment either. Even on the bases of uncompensaited care, Someone pays for it. Charity by law isn't Charity.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

If it makes you feel better... call me anything you like.

Lying shll works--because that's what you are.

What's your point about the real universal application of EMTALA? That an entity that doesn't 'take Medicare' doesn't have to be under its 'regulatory requirements'? Even your Mayo Clinic in Arizona still takes Medicare (with its claim of losing 800 million dollars of its 'costs' to Medicare), doesn't it, Capital?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital:

It excludes no one.... It doesn't prohibit the extracting of payment either. Even on the bases of uncompensaited care, Someone pays for it. Charity by law isn't Charity.

So, if it (EMTALA) 'excludes no one', how is that any different from a 'universal application' of medical care? Even if it is a 'product'? That some pay for--and some don't....

And, let's go ahead and put it into the context that's already been used. If a renal patient with kidney failure could die from that, should every renal patient receive dialysis? And, if that is a 'product', how is that to be paid for--and who should pay? Or, should every kidney failure patient receive dialysis?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Lying shll works--because that's what you are.

I'm rubber your glue.

What's your point about the real universal application of EMTALA? That an entity that doesn't 'take Medicare' doesn't have to be under its 'regulatory requirements'? Even your Mayo Clinic in Arizona still takes Medicare (with its claim of losing 800 million dollars of its 'costs' to Medicare), doesn't it, Capital?

When were you planning on dealing with the $800 million Loss part of the Argument of Mayo? Or the Loss of the $40.7 Billion in Uncompensiated care of EMTALA? Are are you context to sing the praises of a congressional act of forced charities that directly effects the economies of Health insurance.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

So, if it (EMTALA) 'excludes no one', how is that any different from a 'universal application' of medical care? Even if it is a 'product'? That some pay for--and some don't....

Are you suggesting that NOBODY pays for it. Someone somewhere pays for it or the Product cease to produce.

And, let's go ahead and put it into the context that's already been used. If a renal patient with kidney failure could die from that, should every renal patient receive dialysis? And, if that is a 'product', how is that to be paid for--and who should pay? Or, should every kidney failure patient receive dialysis?

If it is figured into the Cost of the the policy. I see no reason that Private Health insurance can't cover it. Just like any other mandated care.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

When were you planning on dealing with the $800 million Loss part of the Argument of Mayo? Or the Loss of the $40.7 Billion in Uncompensiated care of EMTALA?

Never it seems...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

If it is figured into the Cost of the the policy. I see no reason that Private Health insurance can't cover it. Just like any other mandated care.

Mandated care? Is that the 'free market' even as you supposedly have offered here before, Capital?

Plus, if you are proposing that, now, insurance companies will pay for those patients that get dialysis for years on end, how are those insurance companies going to 'cover more for less'? More to the point, how are insurance companies going to pay more than $70,000 per year per patient, and do so by charging the policy holders less than what they charge now without such coverage, and do it in a manner that keeps their CEO's making millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars off of it? Do you have 'those numbers', Capital?

Or, is this just another 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' tactic coming from a lying shill like yourself, Capital?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital quoting Capital:
Quote Capital:

When were you planning on dealing with the $800 million Loss part of the Argument of Mayo? Or the Loss of the $40.7 Billion in Uncompensiated care of EMTALA?

Never it seems...

Let me point out that, once again, as part of your lying tactics, Capital, you claimed that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona had abandoned the Medicare system so that it wouldn't have to follow EMTALA. Why didn't they do that as you initially proposed, Capital?

Secondly, and similarly, with whatever billions that the EMTALA requirements supposedly 'cost' the entities that follow them, why aren't they just abandoning such EMTALA requirements by abandoning Medicare to prove that insurance companies can 'do it by covering more for less' and going to a 'totally insurance covered medical program'? Is government 'forcing' such entities and the involved insurance companies NOT to do so? When you falsely made that very assumption that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona did just that? So, why don't they do just that, Capital?

Or, is this yet another 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' tactic coming from a lying shill such as yourself, Capital?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Mandated care? Is that the 'free market' even as you supposedly have offered here before, Capital?

Begs the question whether you have the ability to retain what you've read.

Plus, if you are proposing that, now, insurance companies will pay for those patients that get dialysis for years on end, how are those insurance companies going to 'cover more for less'?

By putting an end to Cost shifting.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

Let me point out that, once again, as part of your lying tactics, Capital, you claimed that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona had abandoned the Medicare system so that it wouldn't have to follow EMTALA. Why didn't they do that as you initially proposed, Capital?

So you have chosen to dance around it like a pansy.

Until you address cost shift, we are done.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

Mandated care? Is that the 'free market' even as you supposedly have offered here before, Capital?

Begs the question whether you have the ability to retain what you've read.

Capital, can you actually make a comment on the issue--or is this yet another lying shill tactic to divert the discussion away from any real remarks? You are the one that came in here claiming something about the 'free, or open, market', aren't you? You are the one that came in here claiming that 'government intervention' interfered with that, didn't you? But, what you cannot do is honestly correlate that to the real world application of American medicine in any way consistent with your claims, can you? And, of course, the real reason why you cannot do that is that the real world of American medicine is a collusion between government and corporations alternating the paying source in a manner that can even have the semblance, the mere appearance, of it being 'medicine for all'.

But, it does so in a very dishonest way--and, while you claim to have something different in mind, what you really offer is no different in context or content--it is still the collusion between corporations and government alternating the paying source in a manner that can even have a semblance, the mere appearance, of it being 'medicine for all'. Having the taxpaying consumer pay for someone else to get it for free by their taxes as others are required to buy insurance for their own benefits. No matter what name calling you can come up with, that fact is not negated. You are a lying shill--intent on trying in every way you can to 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' tactics NOT to have to directly address the issue of American medicine--nor whether it is to be seen as a right or applied as a privileged product and responsibly, and consistently, acting accordingly. And, that's the point.

Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

Plus, if you are proposing that, now, insurance companies will pay for those patients that get dialysis for years on end, how are those insurance companies going to 'cover more for less'?

By putting an end to Cost shifting.

An end to 'cost shifting', Capital? What is that supposed to mean when, if this is to be seen as a solvent process at all, the premise behind taxes by government AND/OR policies by insurance companies mean that more people will pay into the program than require the services of that program? Huh, Capital? Nor does it consider that, especially in the issue of kidney dialysis, many people that require it couldn't afford it if it wasn't given to them. So, how are you going to avoid any and all 'cost shifting' AND have every kidney failure patient receive dialysis? As your 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' lying shill tactics try to divert this issue, the question is still the same:

And, let's go ahead and put it into the context that's already been used. If a renal patient with kidney failure could die from that, should every renal patient receive dialysis? And, if that is a 'product', how is that to be paid for--and who should pay? Or, should every kidney failure patient receive dialysis?

So, if you don't want 'cost shifting' at all, then answer these questions accordingly: Are you going to refuse dialysis on a patient that needs it that cannot pay for it? If you are going to dialyze them, then you are going to 'cost shift'. If you aren't going to dialyze them to avoid all 'cost shifting', then, they are going to die. There is no 'bait and switch' or 'look the other way' option to that proposal notwithstanding your rather unproven, and unverified, assertion that insurance companies would even be willing to cover those costs for less if government didn't cover for any of it AND everyone that needed it was going to get dialysis AND the CEO's in this 'industry' were to keep making mllions--if not hundreds of millions--of dollars off it in the meantime. Don't try to pull this bullshit about 'cost shifting' away from this point: If anyone that needs dialysis doesn't get dialysis, they will die. How are you going to avoid 'cost shifting' if you are going to dialyze everyone? And, if you aren't going to dialyze everyone, how is that 'covering more for less'? Huh, Capital?

Can you address that part of even kidney dialysis and 'cost shifting'.....or, are you just a lying shill wanting to 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' when it comes to the fundamentals of the issue of the application of American medicine--is it a right to all--or should it be approached as if a privileged product that is to go only to those that pay for it directly? And, actually, YOU (in your 'free and open market' and 'government intervention is the problem' bullshit) proposing a 'solution' that still screws the taxpaying consumer by having government pay for some of it (the most expensive ones) as corporations reap the profits off of the rest...for CEO's to make millions--if not hundreds of millions--of dollars in the meantime....

So, in fact, Capital, if you are really against 'all cost shifting' as you claim to be now (disregarding that both government AND insurance companies rely on some form of 'cost shifting' in this process, anyway), why have anyone that cannot pay for it be covered by anything (including government)? Or, is this just yet another lying shill tactic of yours to 'look the other way' and 'bait and switch'....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry: You are the one that came in here claiming something about the 'free, or open, market', aren't you?

We are on Page 8 and your not sure what my argument is. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. So you lie qouting "Free Market" know full well I refered to Open markets. And you wonder she people hate talking to you.

Attack attack... blah blahb blah... fuckin windbag... moving on...

An end to 'cost shifting', Capital?

Shit... I thought you were finally going to address it. Your Dancing like a woodland fairy.

So, if you don't want 'cost shifting' at all, then answer these questions accordingly: Are you going to refuse dialysis on a patient that needs it that cannot pay for it? If you are going to dialyze them, then you are going to 'cost shift'.

If government paid for what it used, Why would there be Cost shifting. Can you explain that? Do you even know what pays for Dialysis?

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

If government paid for what it used, Why would there be Cost shifting. Can you explain that? Do you even know what pays for Dialysis?

If government has to pay for it, how does that, in any way, represent your 'free and open markiet' without 'government intervention'? You have said that, Capital. Those have been brought back up recently. If that is wrong, then explain yourself now. But, I doubt that you can because what you really want to do is distract and misinform--like the lying shill that you are.

Your own site said that government paid 18 billion dollars in dialysis--yet, claimed the '25%' (6 billion dollars) that insurance paid for supposedly covered for 'the costs that government didn't pay for' (not comparing what insurance companies would pay for for dialysis patients that get dialyzed year in and year out because insurance companies DON'T pay for that, do they, Capital?) What 'costs' would insurance pay for in dialysis without government, Capital? That's the question that I asked you. You implied 'more'--but you really haven't proven that--especially if it is to be done 'without government'. But, then, in your 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' manner of maneuvering your 'discussion', you really don't even make a consistent point in this....

Did you address that last point, Capital:

So, in fact, Capital, if you are really against 'all cost shifting' as you claim to be now (disregarding that both government AND insurance companies rely on some form of 'cost shifting' in this process, anyway), why have anyone that cannot pay for it be covered by anything (including government)? Or, is this just yet another lying shill tactic of yours to 'look the other way' and 'bait and switch'....

If medical care is a 'product', then, why is anyone that isn't paying for it getting it, Capital? Even if government 'helps them'. And, how does government 'helping them pay for it' represent, in any way, your claim that this is all about the 'free and open market' without government? Or, are you now saying that 'government interfering with the free and open market is what causes our problems' not an accurate description of what you have been declaring all along? In other words, how does government paying for any of this consistent in any way with your supposed point on a 'free and open market'? If that isn't an accurate description of your point, you could clarify it now.....but, you won't because you aren't really here to clarify, are you, Capital? You are here just to distract and misinform like the lying shill that you are...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You are just not going to do address cost shift, Are you? You just bound and determined to stay mired in this bullshit.

Quote Kerry:

If government has to pay for it, how does that, in any way, represent your 'free and open markiet' without 'government intervention'?

Who says government HAS to pay for it. That was a choice government made. Do they pay for all Heart bypasses, or All alcohol treatment.... No they don't. So what makes you think they NEED to pay for all dialysis.

Did you address that last point, Capital

What the fuck makes you special, You have never address ANY of mine.

If medical care is a 'product', then, why is anyone that isn't paying for it getting it, Capital?

Because 535 people for political reasons felt they were addressing a problem in america and they felt the best way to address that was through Blackmail and extortion.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

What a 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' liar you are, Capital. If you are so much against government paying for anything in the market, why are you putting government into your 'application of the product of medical care' solution? And, if no one is to receive any product without paying for it, why are you adding EMTALA as a requirement for government? And, if government is to pay for anyone's EMTALA issue, who are you excluding from that, and, if you are excluding no one, how is that any different from universal care and a right to medical treatment? That you say shouldn't exist in your supposed 'free and open market'. See how you run around the issue, Capital--in a 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' fashion.....

So, my conclusion is what you are really here for is to distract and misinform--claim something for the industry against Obamacare when it will be that very industry that capitalizes on it at a greater cost to the taxpaying consumer and, then, when the whole thing implodes under its self-created financial insolvency (due to that very collusion of corporation with government against that taxpaying consumer), once again, just like the financial market did (that had its own corporate-government collusion to back it), 'blame government' for it....you, Capital, aren't here to really 'get government out of it' as you claim 'government is the problem', you are just here to 'blame government for it' when Obamacare implodes like the financial markets did.....all along, distracting and misinforming while doing so....'we' should be cognizant of that tactic since it has already been used before on 'us' by the financial market debacle--but, maybe not....you hope not, right, Capital?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

What a 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' liar you are, Capital.

I understand why you are cranky, Nobody like you. Which should amount to obvious reasons for all to see. I wonder why you even continue this thread. Clearly you have some deep seeded agenda because nobody is that stupid. 8 pages and you continue to refuse to address the Plan I presented (post #183), The fundemental problems of the System I have addressed (cost Shifting), yet I have answered hundreds of your question, some multiple times. yet you just keep on asking them. You have offered NO Plan of your own, Your only fundemental problem you seem to claim repeatedly is CEO pay related.

If you are so much against government paying for anything in the market, why are you putting government into your 'application of the product of medical care' solution?

Because they are currently there, removing them is unlikely and minimizing thier negaitive effects on the market will make the system better and cheaper. But then again, I already said all that.

And, if government is to pay for anyone's EMTALA issue, who are you excluding from that, and, if you are excluding no one, how is that any different from universal care and a right to medical treatment?

Currently Government doesn't pay. In my system, EMTALA would be covered by Medicaid. EMTALA doesn't provide you free Medical care. It merely stops the Hospital from using ability to pay as a denial of service. Hospitals still get to charge you for the Care received (SO NOT UNIVERSIAL CARE) Being covered by medicaid just makes EMTALA a funded mandate on those who truely can't pay and saves the Hospital from incurring the loss. Thereby COST SHIFTING to those who do pay thier bills

See how you run around the issue, Capital

This only happens in your head.

So, my conclusion is what you are really here for is to distract and misinform-

My conclusion is your a fucking retard. So if I'm right, then I guess you may be right also.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

I'll forego all your slurring remarks, Capital. You're still a lying shill, however. I will remark on one part of your first section:

You have offered NO Plan of your own,

Actually, I offer a more involved critique on the present state of medical care than you, Capital. I have dubbed it the 'corporate-government collusion'--and have compared 'the industry's' involvement in Obamacare (that 'industry adherents' such as yourself claim to 'be against') with the debacle that occurred with the financial markets and the home mortgage debacle. Did that escape your sincere attention, Capital?

My plan is simple--and it is founded on whatever premise 'we' decide to approach the application of medical care. If it is to be administered to all, then the most responsible way to administer it is through single payer. Period. If it is to be seen as a 'product' that has only those who pay directly for it to receive it, then, as I've asked you repeatedly, why is government in it to begin with? It's the collusion between the 'paying sources' of corporation and government that has gotten us in as bad a tangle as we have today with some getting it for free and others risking bankruptcy for the same services. Did that escape your sincere attention, Capital?

And, Obamacare will only make matters worse, not better. Under the guise that it is 'the best we can do to administer universal care', corporations will still get the bulk of the cream of the crop for profits as government continues to pay what is paid for the most expensive patients--as Obamacare mandates those 40 million that have no present government or corporate support to either buy insurance from corporations or pay a 'tax penalty' to government. The point is that most of those 40 million don't require expensive medical care at this time--if they did, under the very EMTALA laws (and medical malpractice litigation that already approaches this issue as a legal right because one who pays nothing can sue just as much as one who pays everything) that we have now, they would get it. Whether they paid for it or not. Now, despite your claims, Capital, health insurance corporations are already making enough money to pay their CEO's millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars for their efforts--so, I'm not sure how much 'the industry' is 'losing in costs' by such a fact. So, adding basically 40 million mandated insurance policies to what they already have without having to cover for most of the most expensive patients (government already does that) will just be a boon to the industry at an even higher cost to the taxpaying consumer. Setting up those stocks and marketable issues based on such an industry to 'new heights' in profitability just like the home loan market did--and with just as likely a crash as the home loan market had when such profitability eventually reaches unsustainability (Again, how does a market 'increase in its market share' if whatever 'product' it is offering is given to everyone in one way or the other--like universal medical care is? And, you don't think that those who run this 'industry' don't already know that? I think that they do--and they are already making excuses for this crash exactly in line with the 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' lying shill maneuvers of those like Capital--just like the excuses of 'government involvement causing the problem' that the home loan crisis did. And, to be sure, it is a problem that's cause can be traced to government involvement--as it colludes with corporations in the industry.)

You following that, Capital? Or, did that escape your sincere attention?

In short, it's the collusion between corporations and government in this 'industry' that has created the mess we are in now--and will continue to do so on steroids under Obamacare. But, as Capital's remarks now indicate, Capital isn't here to make any real changes in that collusion--Capital is here to claim something to do with 'free and open markets', claim something 'against government involvement because it makes it worse', but, then, offer nothing different than what we already have because, indeed, it is that very set-up with government and corporations that is in the best interest of profitability to those corporations. All Capital is doing now is putting out the canned excuse 'government did it' that will be used once it crashes....I sincerely hope 'we' don't fall for it once again....

If Capital were as much a purist as Capital first indicated when coming onto this thread, Capital would not only lnsist that government get out of it but would also show in enough detail how corporations would step up to 'cover more for less' that Capital claims is in their interest to the point to where those numbers would explain how, for instance, patients that get dialysis on a yearly basis would have insurance companies paying more than what government already pays for them (remember, that's not enough 'to cover their costs'), how insurance companies would do that by charging less for their policies, and how insurance companies would do that AND continue to pay those CEO's those millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars that they already get. But, Capital isn't doing that, is Capital? Wonder why not.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

If you are so much against government paying for anything in the market, why are you putting government into your 'application of the product of medical care' solution?

Because they are currently there, removing them is unlikely and minimizing thier negaitive effects on the market will make the system better and cheaper. But then again, I already said all that.

What do you mean by 'minimizing government's negative effects'? Is that in line with this present bullshit that you are calling 'cost shifting'? Does that mean somebody getting something for nothing? Well, even if government pays for it, aren't they still getting something for nothing, Capital? But, the corporation that provides the service is now getting paid, is that it, Capital? Is that going to have government pay 'less than their costs'--and who gets to determine that and how do they determine that, Capital?

Is 'minimizing government's negative effects' really just code for the supposed 'free and open market' purists to leave government in it? You know, to keep covering those most expensive patients so corporations can keep making all those profits--more so now with 40 million new policy holders....but then, as Capital has tried to do so here, keep up that 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' lying shill tactics of being 'for pure free and open markets' so that when too much is taken out of the economy for this rather strained rendition of 'universal care' that it implodes under its own financial burden to the taxpaying consumer, the 'canned excuse' is already ready--'government involvement did it'....

And, there's still people here that think that this Supreme Court is going to find Obamacare 'unconstitutional'? Even with the mandates that have nothing to do with 'free and open markets'...but Capital and Capital's ilk will conveniently have industry take advantage of such mandates even as it 'blames government' for having them....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital:
Quote Kerry:

And, if government is to pay for anyone's EMTALA issue, who are you excluding from that, and, if you are excluding no one, how is that any different from universal care and a right to medical treatment?

Currently Government doesn't pay. In my system, EMTALA would be covered by Medicaid. EMTALA doesn't provide you free Medical care. It merely stops the Hospital from using ability to pay as a denial of service. Hospitals still get to charge you for the Care received (SO NOT UNIVERSIAL CARE) Being covered by medicaid just makes EMTALA a funded mandate on those who truely can't pay and saves the Hospital from incurring the loss. Thereby COST SHIFTING to those who do pay thier bills

Oh, government pays a lot, Capital. Even your site says that government covers for around 18 billion dollars worth of its dialysis patients--75% of its income, wasn't it? And, I am sure that that involves all of the patients that get dialyzed on a yearly basis. That you claim 'insurance has to cover for the costs that government doesn't pay for' with the other 25%, right? Isn't that what you claimed? That 6 billion dollars 'covers for the costs' that the 18 billion 'doesn't cover for'? How does that really work out with the numbers, Capital? Or, did that escape your sincere attention?

I will agree with you on one respect, Capital. EMTALA isn't directly funded. However, I do know that that doesn't mean that all patients that are covered by EMTALA regulations (and that's everyone, isn't it, Capital?--closely linking EMTALA to a 'universal care' application of medicine that you, in a pure free and open market analysis without government, say shouldn't exist, right, Capital? That didn't escape my sincere attention.....) aren't funded. In the state of Texas. almost any pregnant woman can get Medicaid. Government funds already cover most of what is covered in burn cases, trauma cases, kidney failure cases, heart cases, stroke cases, major infection cases, severe childhood illness cases, cancer cases--in fact, just about most of the ailments that can be life or limb threatening, government already covers for most of what is paid for it.

I don't know where Capital is getting this 40 billion dollar cost issue from--probably just like kidney dialysis, extrapolating what insurance companies will pay in the short term for what government pays in the long term--and, then, claiming that as 'a loss in costs'. Again, if 'the costs' aren't covered, how are CEO's in this industry making millions--if not hundreds of millions--of dollars off of it? I suspect that this is just another one of Capital's 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' lying shill tactics--that Capital is probably getting paid to do....

What do you mean by this statement, Capital: "It (EMTALA being paid directly by Medicaid) merely stops the Hospital from using ability to pay as a denial of service." Uh, that is the point of EMTALA, Capital--a Hospital cannot deny a life, limb, or laboring pregnancy related service to anyone regardless of whether they can pay or not--and that's any Hospital that gets any payments from Medicare directly (and that even includes your lying example of the Mayo Clinic in Arizona). The Hospital cannot 'deny the service' if it provides it, anyway. That's the point of EMTALA--as unfunded as it may directly be, it is a 'universal care' regulation--something that you, previously, have said shouldn't exist with 'the product' of medical care because it acts just like a right.....now, you still want it but you want government now to 'directly pay for it'....in that regard, read my post #383 with sincere attention paid to how this helps prop up even more 'industry profits'....to a 'universal care' issue....again, how does a 'market expand' with a product that is given to all?

Quote Capital:

My conclusion is your a fucking retard. So if I'm right, then I guess you may be right also.

What? Do you have a sincere attention mode, Capital? Or, are you spouting off from 'the policy manual'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Actually, I offer a more involved critique on the present state of medical care than you, Capital.

Doesn't sound liek a plan... Sounds like someone who just like a complain a lot.

Great single payer, so noted.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Kerry:

What do you mean by 'minimizing government's negative effects'? Is that in line with this present bullshit that you are calling 'cost shifting'?

Bullshit Huh? So Medicare only paying .77/$1 and Medicaid only pays .55/$ and EMTALA pays ZERO. You DONT find this to be a negative effect or the orgins of Cost Shifting... Starting to lean back to the Retarded theory.

One starting to wonder who you are talking to. Since clearly nobody likes you. Must be your strawman to talk to .

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Well, I see that I got your 'sincere attention' there, Capital. The point is that if universal care is the premise, single payer would be the most responsible approach. If it isn't, what's government's role being in it at all? Just to 'pick and chose' who to cover (government should never be 'playing favorites'---it opens that prospect up for abuse every time--especially a corporate-government colluded abuse)? As a collusion with corporations (remember, paying for most of what is paid for the most expensive patients), especially as that collusion is put on steroids with Obamacare, another 'bubble' in the financial markets is going to erupt--and, when it bursts, just like the home mortgage debacle that had government colluding with that industry, industry pundits like yourself are set-up and geared to 'blaming government' and claiming how 'that restriction impeded the free and open market'. IF--and that is a BIG IF--you were the purist that you originally claimed to be when you came in here to begin with, why are you condoning government staying in that very market that you have blamed for 'not covering industry's costs'? Are you being a 'sincere attentive person' in making such 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' prospects--or a lying shill put in here to have the 'canned excuse' already out there.....

We'll see, won't we, Capital? And, we'll see how this Supreme Court decides on Obamacare accordingly.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital:

Bullshit Huh? So Medicare only paying .77/$1 and Medicaid only pays .55/$ and EMTALA pays ZERO. You DONT find this to be a negative effect or the orgins of Cost Shifting... Starting to lean back to the Retarded theory

I noticed that your 'sincere attention' missed the rest of that point in your present 'cost shifting' excuse:

Does that mean somebody getting something for nothing? Well, even if government pays for it, aren't they still getting something for nothing, Capital? But, the corporation that provides the service is now getting paid, is that it, Capital? Is that going to have government pay 'less than their costs'--and who gets to determine that and how do they determine that, Capital?

In fact, if government isn't 'covering the costs' and you imply that insurance companies 'would pay more for the same services' and 'be able to charge less in doing it', again, why are you leaving government in as part of your so-called 'open and free market solution'? Or, Capital, are such 'costs' being determined just like I said about the kidney dialysis industry--comparing what insurance companies pay in the short term to what government pays in the long term.

Would insurance companies be able to 'do more for less' if such companies were paying for the things that government pays for (which, again, don't forget, is most of what is paid for most of the most expensive patients in medical care)? And, do so by paying more for that care, and do so and charge less to each policy holder, and do so and keep those CEO's makiing millions--if not hundreds of millions--of dollars like they do now? Do you really have those numbers, Capital? No, because you really aren't even making that offer, are you, Capital? Even as you try to make that excuse....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Oh, government pays a lot, Capital. Even your site says that government covers for around 18 billion dollars worth of its dialysis patients--75% of its income, wasn't it? And, I am sure that that involves all of the patients that get dialyzed on a yearly basis. That you claim 'insurance has to cover for the costs that government doesn't pay for' with the other 25%, right? Isn't that what you claimed? That 6 billion dollars 'covers for the costs' that the 18 billion 'doesn't cover for'? How does that really work out with the numbers, Capital? Or, did that escape your sincere attention?

Since I can post hundreds of stories all claiming that Medicare short pays on everything they actually do and that that deficit is shifted to Private insurance to pay. Why don't you do the leg work and show that Medicare Pays their share of the care they provide for. You seem to be operating under a false notion of the Health industry. perhaps your attempt to prove your point will finally convince you are wrong.

I will agree with you on one respect, Capital. EMTALA isn't directly funded. However, I do know that that doesn't mean that all patients that are covered by EMTALA regulations (and that's everyone, isn't it, Capital?--closely linking EMTALA to a 'universal care' application of medicine that you, in a pure free and open market analysis without government, say shouldn't exist, right, Capital? That didn't escape my sincere attention.....) aren't funded. In the state of Texas. almost any pregnant woman can get Medicaid. Government funds already cover most of what is covered in burn cases, trauma cases, kidney failure cases, heart cases, stroke cases, major infection cases, severe childhood illness cases, cancer cases--in fact, just about most of the ailments that can be life or limb threatening, government already covers for most of what is paid for it.

Really.. it the stupid commentary in the middle the ruins the whole paragraph.

It's not even indirectly funded. As your Piss Poor understanding of EMTALA is clearly showing. Uncompensated Care is $62B in 2009. So we are not talking about Medicaid covered care... Dumbass.

What do you mean by this statement, Capital: "It (EMTALA being paid directly by Medicaid) merely stops the Hospital from using ability to pay as a denial of service."

How is that you have the ability to fuck up a simple understandable sentence and change into a piece of crap sentence? EMTALA prevents Patient dumping. Being paid by Medicaid is irrelevant to the sentence, yet you felt it necessary to insert it. Go figure.

If you want to use EMTALA as a positve to your desire to have Universal Healthcare.... I could easy kick your ass every minute of every day until your eyes bleed. EMTALA while questionally necessary is an Abomination to the economy. Has single handily made healthcare harder to get and vastly more expensive. So please by all means tout EMTALA as your vision of Universal Healthcare.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Capital:

Since I can post hundreds of stories all claiming that Medicare short pays on everything they actually do and that that deficit is shifted to Private insurance to pay.

'Stories' can say anything, can't they, Capital? Depending upon whose telling them--and why....

That still doesn't account for how, in the kidney dialysis industry, 6 billion dollars of insurance money 'covers the costs' of what government paid 18 billion dollars for.....

Quote Capital:

Why don't you do the leg work and show that Medicare Pays their share of the care they provide for.

Because that's not the premise as you have promoted it, Capital. Your premise was a 'pure open and free market'. Your accusation was 'government involvement interfered with that market'. You even keep adding that 'government doesn't pay for the costs that it does pay for' and 'insurance companies have to pick up the slack'. If I'm wrong in your assessment, stop me at any point in this and correct me. So, my point to you has been why are you and all the purist 'open and free market' adherents claiming that insurance companies would 'provide more for less' (if 'government would just let them') keeping government in it at all? You aren't actually changing the game plan, are you? You are just making excuses for the industry.

Look at your kidney dialysis site once again, Capital. That site is NOT comparing what insurance companies pay for each dialysis patient per year like what government does pay for. That site is comparing the yearly payment of dialysis patients by government to the per instance payment that 'some' insurance companies offer. Not a real comparison. That would be like comparing how much someone pays to rent a house or apartment per year to how much someone pays to rent a hotel room for one night--if you extrapolated the nightly rate, I am sure it would be a whole lot more than the yearly rate. But, it would be a comparison that someone like you, as the lying shill that you are, would use. Is that how all these 'cost comparisons' are 'calculated', Capital? Or, does it just 'take a story'.....

Quote Capital:

Really.. it the stupid commentary in the middle the ruins the whole paragraph.

What, Capital? That EMTALA isn't a 'universal care' regulation and application? Again, who are you excluding from EMTALA? Those hospitals that don't take Medicare? Which ones are those? It certainly wasn't your lying example of the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, was it, Capital?

Quote Capital:

Uncompensated Care is $62B in 2009.

How is that calculated, Capital? And, if the industry is losing that much money in its 'costs', how are some CEO'S in this industry still making millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars? And, if insurance companies were to take over what government pays for, how would they do it AND pay more money for the same services AND do it at less cost to each policy holder AND keep those CEO's making those millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars like they do now? Do those numbers really add up, Capital? But, you still make the same 'government did it' excuses for the industry, don't you, Capital? Even before those excuses are needed when Obamacare makes this corporate-government collusion go into overdrive....and, remember, government still pays the most of what is paid for the most expensive patients....don't forget that.....

Quote Capital:

EMTALA prevents Patient dumping. Being paid by Medicaid is irrelevant to the sentence, yet you felt it necessary to insert it. Go figure.

Oh, is that all you meant, Capital? So, what's the point about Medicaid paying directly for EMTALA then? And, don't forget once again, the whole premise behind EMTALA is that any patient with a life or limb or laboring pregnancy related condition gets treated if the facility has the ability to treat it--or gets appropriately transferred to one that can--whether they can pay or not. That is 'getting something for nothing', isn't it, Capital? I thought you said that wasn't appropriate in a pure 'open and free market' when the 'product' isn't a 'right'.....so:

Quote Capital:

If you want to use EMTALA as a positve to your desire to have Universal Healthcare.... I could easy kick your ass every minute of every day until your eyes bleed. EMTALA while questionally necessary is an Abomination to the economy. Has single handily made healthcare harder to get and vastly more expensive. So please by all means tout EMTALA as your vision of Universal Healthcare.

Who is not to get the care that EMTALA promotes, Capital? If that is everyone, then, EMTALA is a universal care legal regulation. The same goes for medical malpractice cases--someone can sue whether they paid for everything or nothing of their medical care. That, also, is a universal care legal regulation. Now, with all those universal care legal regulations, we have a financial backing for it that piecemeals the payment structure together--some get it paid partially or completely by government (whether they paid into the appropriate program covering them or not--kidney dialysis comes to mind but many other cases of government coverage of things like trauma and burns also could be included--most insurance policies don't cover these costs--or they 'maximize benefit them out' fairly quickly), some get it paid partially or completely by corporate insurance policies (depending upon the policy stipulations in each contract and the deductibles involved--and, remember, all insurance policies tied to Medicare patients are designed only to pay for the 20% of the Medicare allowable charge that Medicare pays 80% of--minus, of course, any deductibles), and some don't get it paid for at all (risking bankruptcy for services that some get for free at no cost to them--and some of those people may be paying taxes for others to get it for free--talk about 'cost shifting'....). And, the problem with that piecemealed payment structure is that, ultimately, the same entity is responsible for paying for all of it--the taxpaying consumer (having their taxes pay for someone else's benefits as they are now required as a consumer to purchase insurance policies to have themselves covered for the same services--which I think is the main reason why American health care costs twice as much per capita than anywhere else in the world--the same paying entity gets charged twice through two different programs--the corporate-government collusion).

I have no idea what Capital is trying to say when Capital says that EMTALA has made 'health care hard to get and vastly more expensive'--sounds like another canned speech to go along with Capital's canned excuses. EMTALA's whole point is its universal care basis that no one gets turned down with a life or limb threatening illness--or a laboring pregnancy--by any facility that gets Medicare and offers the services involved--whether they can pay or not (and, if they don't offer such services, affect an appropriate transfer to one that does). I'm not sure what Capital means with EMTALA 'making healthcare harder to get', the point is that it's 'easier to get'--if you have a life or limb or laboring pregnancy-related condition and you present to a facility that takes Medicare payments (whether you have Medicare or not), you have the right to be seen and appropriately dealt with (and Capital said this shouldn't involve 'rights'). And, I have no idea what Capital means when Capital says that EMTALA makes health care become 'vastly more expensive' when Capital still has EMTALA stay in even Capital's 'solution' and, then, have EMTALA directly be paid for by government. Last I checked, if you 'pay more', that means 'you have more expenses'--and, don't forget, the same population is paying for all of this--the taxpaying consumer. Don't let Capital's 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' lying shill tactics have you ignore that point.....the taxpaying consumer is paying for all of what is paid for in this corporate-government colluded 'application' that we call 'American medicine'.....and Obamacare will just add to such payouts.....and the industry is banking on that.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

'Stories' can say anything, can't they, Capital? Depending upon whose telling them--and why....

That still doesn't account for how, in the kidney dialysis industry, 6 billion dollars of insurance money 'covers the costs' of what government paid 18 billion dollars for.....

Brillant piece of Denialism (strike 1). Can you offer me up a reason why I should just write your ass off for another day and insult every aspect of your intellegence?

The second part.... is about the stupidest question (strike 2)

Because that's not the premise as you have promoted it, Capital.

AND that is why you remain a fucking idiot. THAT IS and has ALWAYS BEEN MY PREMISE. You didn't like that, so you manufactured your own "premise was a 'pure open and free market'. (strike 3) Fuck off Kerry

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

And, as the industry has shills out here like Capital claiming all the bad things that government does against the 'free and open market', you would think that those who share Capital's viewpoint in the government would be trying to get government out of the 'medical care industry'--especially its financing of it. But, a recent article from Huffington Post involving Paul Ryan's 'Medicare Plan' seems to say, otherwise. This is from Michael McAuliff's article 'Inventor of Paul Ryan's Medicare Idea Explains Why It's Wrong' (emphases will be mine):

The co-creator of the concept that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is relying upon to reform Medicare no longer thinks it will work. Henry Aaron, now of the Brookings Institution, got the chance to tell Ryan exactly why at a recent Capitol Hill hearing.

Aaron and former Urban Institute president Robert Reischauer came up with the idea of "premium support" in 1995, after the failure of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton's bid to reform the health care system.

The basic idea is simple: let people pick their health insurers in the private market, subsidize the premiums, and competition will drive down costs. That's the theory behind Ryan's plan, recently endorsed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a white paper the two wrote.

It differs from Aaron's original vision--in part because it has fewer protections for beneficiaries--but the essential concept is the same. Aaron says this isn't the time to test it out.

"In the years since Bob Reischauer and I put this Idea forward, I've changed my mind," Aaron said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

The big reason is that Aaron has seen no evidence since the two men came up with the idea that their assumptions have been borne out.

A key assumption was that the insurance industry or government would figure out how better to adjust risk among companies so that if one insurer suddenly was saddled with an unusually expensive population, it would share the costs with other insurers or the government. That would keep costs down because it removes some of the incentive to cherry-pick healthier customers or shun sick ones.

But in the case of Medicare Advantage, similar to premium support in that Medicare pays a private insurer to cover someone, the attempts at risk adjustment have raised costs by about 8 percent, Aaron noted. On top of that, although there are many Medicare Advantage plans in existence, they are not cheaper than traditional Medicare, and there's little to suggest they will get cheaper.

"The evidence to date is not encouraging," Aaron said, noting a recent study that isolated the effects of competition on Medicare Advantage costs from government-related influences. "After controlling for all those factors, Medicare Advantage plans are more expensive than is traditional Medicare."

Aaron has not abandoned the idea of premium support for Medicare, if it can be figured out. He argued that rather than trying to do it right away, as Ryan and other proponents insist, policymakers should first see how it works for younger people--as it is beginning to be applied in the health care reform law.

"The passage of the Affordable Care Act means we have put in place a key element of the premium support idea for the rest of the population, namely health insurance exchanges," Aaron said. "The Medicare population is vastly more difficult to deal with (Is that because they have more expensive medical problems?--my addition) than the population under the Affordable Care Act. We should prove that the health insurance exchanges work, get them up and running before we take seriously, in my view, calls to put the Medicare population through a similar program."

Aaron also has a major problem with the way Ryan's plan contains costs--by mandating that Medicare inflation be capped at no more than the growth of the Gross Domestic Product, plus 0.5 percent or 1 percent (Is that with, or without, covering the costs like Capital says?--my addition). Health care costs have escalated much faster than that, so premium support plans capped at a little more than GDP growth would buy smaller and smaller benefits.

Aaron also argued that there's another problem with trying to ensure a premium support model works--it requires stringent regulation to make sure companies don't game the system. Aaron said he can't see that happening with a Congress fired by anti-regulatory zeal.

"The regulatory climate has changed," Aaron said. "It is far more hostile to the kinds of regulatory intervention that Bob Reischauer and I thought were essential."

Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, did not engage Aaron in debate at last weeks' hearing, instead relying on one of Aaron's Brookings Institution colleagues, former White House Office Management and Budget head Alice Rivlin to argue why premium support can work. (She says she believes strict oversight and risk adjustment can be done.) Ryan's office did not answer a request for comment.

'Strict oversight and risk adjustment can be done'--and this is coming from Paul Ryan's office. Isn't that the 'free and open market' office that claims it promotes 'no government intervention in the market' so that the 'product of medicine' can use 'competition' to 'cover more for less'--just like Capital here tries to claim? Yet, there it is again--government colluding with corporations.....even coming from those who claim that 'government is the problem'.....and, is corporate 'competition' geared towards covering the most expensive patients--or passing them off to something else? What answer do the 'free and open market' pundits have to that fact? Especially 'without regulation'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital:

AND that is why you remain a fucking idiot. THAT IS and has ALWAYS BEEN MY PREMISE. You didn't like that, so you manufactured your own "premise was a 'pure open and free market'. (strike 3) Fuck off Kerry

Fuck off? Is that because I've called you down as the lying shill that you are--and that's closer to the truth than you are willing to admit, Capital? Enquiring minds would like to know....

I notice that you didn't correct one of my statements summing up 'your position'. Why not, Capital? Expose your position now for all to see--but it really has nothing to do with a real 'open and free market absent government involvement', does it, Capital? And is that really because how 'stupid' I am--or how much of a lying shill you (and all your ilk) are?

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

And, as the industry has shills out here like Capital claiming all the bad things that government does against the 'free and open market', you would think that those who share Capital's viewpoint in the government would be trying to get government out of the 'medical care industry'--especially its financing of it. But, a recent article from Huffington Post involving Paul Ryan's 'Medicare Plan' seems to say, otherwise. This is from Michael McAuliff's article 'Inventor of Paul Ryan's Medicare Idea Explains Why It's Wrong' (emphases will be mine)

I love your delusions, When your field of strawmen catch fire and burns uncontrollably. You just go right back to making more strawmen.

Such a ridiculous article. OF COURSE medicare will always be cheaper than Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is a private insurance has has to pay the full bill. Where Medicare is Government and pays only partial bill and tells people to pound sand. Becuase they are the Government. Of course you will not find doctors denying to treat any Medicare advantage patients.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm
Quote Kerry:Fuck off? Is that because I've called you down as the lying shill that you are--and that's closer to the truth than you are willing to admit, Capital? Enquiring minds would like to know....

Hardly... Your ad homing is meaningless.

Fuck off, because the first three sentences of your response highlight’s the sheer ridiculousness of your participation on this thread.

First, your blanket denialism of stories regarding the gross flaws of Medicare reimbursements. I know you understand my point, since you’ve been improperly using it for 3 pages. I also pretty sure you also know there are NO stories in which people claim Medicare reimbursements are great. Instead are arguing about the actual facts.. you enjoy hearing your talk about your opinion.

Second, obviously highlight the scale of the discombobulated thinking you have become known for.

Third is just an outright lie you continue to believe because you have created this fantasy in your head.

The fuck is for you denial to deal with the issues, your flawed thinking and your outright lying…

So … Fuck off until such time as you can put on your big boy pants.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Are you getting paid to say that kind of crap, Capital? Is that 'industry' getting their money's worth, I wonder....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Are you getting paid to say that kind of crap, Capital? Is that 'industry' getting their money's worth, I wonder....

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself, is fine by me.

Although you get a gold star for the Shortest most concise post you have ever made here

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Do you get paid per line, Capital? No matter what you say--or how much sense you make--or how little you comment on what has been said (other than, of course, the words allowed in your policy manual)....just as long as you distract and misinform...like the lying shill that you are....

Good day...

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Do you get paid per line, Capital? No matter what you say--or how much sense you make--or how little you comment on what has been said (other than, of course, the words allowed in your policy manual)....just as long as you distract and misinform...like the lying shill that you are....

Good day...

Building up those delusions I see. Your just a victim of "the Man" You are just one man against the system trying to Bring the light to the places of darkness You are a target of those vengeful millionaires and billionaires because you speak truth to 'power. They crucify you like the romans crucified Jesus. Maybe you too will rise from the grave and become a religion and a US National Holiday.

I feel for you...

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

I recently heard a man on Thom's show speak of medicine and how the free market should run it--as Thom noted, like it has never been run before (at least not in anyone who is alive now's memory). Was that you, Capital? Thom tried to argue with the man from the perspective of how medicine has, at least over the past century, always had government regulations involved--education and licensing requirements, pharmaceutical standards in research and production to be met, regulations on production and use of medical equipment with some, like X-ray machines, carrying hazardous potentials, etc. But, that man just ignored what Thom said--much like how you ignore what is said, Capital. So, I was just wondering if that was you or just how many cookie-cutter promoting, knee-jerk reacting, ignorantly distracting and misinforming, shills are out there....

Of course, Thom could have tried directing this person's mantra of 'free market in medicine' by asking the hard questions that I have tried to ask here. If a person presents with a life or limb threatening ailment, in the 'free market' way of running things, are they to be prevented from having 'the product' because they cannot pay? I mean, if they don't pay and they receive services, anyway, that's slavery, right, Capital? But, as long as someone--or something--else pays for them (even government), that's still 'the free market', right? I mean, it's not 'cost shifting' to you to have a taxpayer have government pay for someone else's medical 'product' as they, then, have to turn around and become a consumer and purchase 'the product' separately (apparently, according to you as part of this distortion in the mantra of the 'free market', now through insurance companies) for themselves, is it, Capital? In your own delusional analysis called the 'free market', 'cost shifting' is not based on who does the paying--but who gets paid--right, Capital? I mean, as long as the Mayo Clinic in Arizona is satisfied with how much Medicare pays them, it doesn't matter that some still get the medical 'product' at no charge to them--while others have to hesitate at the door for fear of going bankrupt. And those hesitating at the door have, through their taxes, helped 'cover the costs' of those that can get it for free. Should government 'play favorites' when it comes to deciding who can get medical care--the 'medical product'--for free, Capital? Should insurance companies 'play favorites' by having only those that pay directly get 'the medical product' at all? The real basic question to medical care is should it be 'medicine for all'--or only a product offered to those who pay for it? What does your mantra on the 'free market' really say, Capital? What question do you want to ignore--and what way do you want to distort and misinform as you don't answer the basic questions facing the application of medical care in America?

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, I thought a true 'free market' was based on 'choice'. How many people with life or limb threatening illnesses do you think choose that? How does a 'free market' really address this as a 'choice'--when the one presenting can see it as a need? Or, is that just another aspect of this 'product' that lying shills like yourself, Capital, 'choose' to ignore, distract, and misinform with under your mantra of 'free market' in the application of medical care in America?

As far as you 'feeling for me', if you were that person on that called into Thom's show, Capital, judging by the tone of your voice, I doubt you have much real 'feeling' for anyone.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

Was that you, Capital?

Nope.

But, that man just ignored what Thom said--

As he should have. Not too many people are arguing that Government doesn't retain the right regulate the economy through the commerce Clause. Except your and now apparently Thom Fallacious arguments

Of course, Thom could have tried directing this person's mantra of 'free market in medicine' by asking the hard questions that I have tried to ask here. If a person presents with a life or limb threatening ailment, in the 'free market' way of running things, are they to be prevented from having 'the product' because they cannot pay

Why don't you call Thom, You two can sit around ass slapping each other fuilled with your superiority. You both clearly like talking about everything BUT the actual issues.

I mean, it's not 'cost shifting' to you to have a taxpayer have government pay for someone else's medical 'product' as they, then, have to turn around and become a consumer and purchase 'the product' separately (apparently, according to you as part of this distortion in the mantra of the 'free market', now through insurance companies) for themselves, is it, Capital?

Still stupid I see.

Capital's picture
Capital
Joined:
Sep. 30, 2011 2:51 pm

Currently Chatting

A Warren Run Would Change Everything

Over the past few weeks, Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a leader of progressives on Capitol Hill. She led the charge against the part of the CRomnibus that gutted our financial regulations, and she is still fighting the White House over its nomination of bankster Antonio Weiss as Undersecretary of Domestic Finance in the Treasury Department.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system