Can't make us buy HC Insurance

[jognlope]

I think the individual mandate is the same as the over 65 being forced to pay each month for Medicare, and up until in their paychecks, because like the over 65, the under 65 already use the system. But it could be more reasonable, like make the mandate for catastrophic only, with primary care centers getting tax breaks to be set up for the regular care. Or would it be 6 in one, half a dozen the other, might as well have individual mandate be for the complete insurance policy, rather than set up primary care centers at cost.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by jognlope

I think the individual mandate is the same as the over 65 being forced to pay each month for Medicare, and up until in their paychecks, because like the over 65, the under 65 already use the system. But it could be more reasonable, like make the mandate for catastrophic only, with primary care centers getting tax breaks to be set up for the regular care. Or would it be 6 in one, half a dozen the other, might as well have individual mandate be for the complete insurance policy, rather than set up primary care centers at cost.

No, seasoned citizens are not forced to buy any part of Medicare. It's left up to each individual's choice. Part A, by the way, is part of the SS packagel. That's a "freebie".

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by slewis

What I ask, not being an attorney, is why should I be forced to buy Car insurance either? Is it because I'm putting others at risk if I hit them and I would be liable?
If so, the argument can be (and will be in some facimile) made that someone forced to go to the ER for emergency care who cant afford it is a financial burden to the people of the US. Just like the auto accident, there is financial liability. In the case of health care, that burden is placed upon the taxpayers as whole.

If I cant be forced to have health insurance, they cant force auto insurance.

Where, in turn, society runs the risk of having every 17 yr old with a license who would normally go into assigned risk and pay very high premiums, driving without insurance altogether.

He run a stop sign, hits your car, and now what?

There is a lot to debate here.

this health insurance is already going on in mass. i understand the concept behind it even though i don't agree with it. but i don't carry prescription drug care because i will never shove one of those bad drugs in my body. i rather die. yet because i don't pay for prescription drug care i got hit with a $3000 penalty. i want someone to explain to me how that extracts money out of other peoples pockets if i won't take the drugs. if i walk into a pharmacy with a prescription to be filled and i don't have insurance or money to pay for the drugs the guys in the white coats in the CVS will tell me to take a hike.

[slewis]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

this health insurance is already going on in mass. i understand the concept behind it even though i don't agree with it. but i don't carry prescription drug care because i will never shove one of those bad drugs in my body. i rather die. yet because i don't pay for prescription drug care i got hit with a $3000 penalty. i want someone to explain to me how that extracts money out of other peoples pockets if i won't take the drugs. if i walk into a pharmacy with a prescription to be filled and i don't have insurance or money to pay for the drugs the guys in the white coats in the CVS will tell me to take a hike.

Maybe the theory Lambo is the same as someone who expects not to have to pay that portion of property tax that's used to fund education if he or she has no children.

Health care debate aside, if it's for the whole of society, the courts will probably rule the tax legal.

[lamboguy]

the city, town or municipality deeded out the land in THEIR jurisdictions. this is where the difference lies, they don't own or never have owned my body or my mother's body. i have no problem paying my overpriced real estate taxes to the town i live in because i knew it was my duty to pay it before i bought my house. if i didn't want to pay them, i didn't have to buy the house. i have been walking around without prescription drug care for 60 years now. after 60 years someone decides that i need it now. i am penalized for my refusal to carry prescription drug care.

i am not against someone getting medical attention, even though i think these doctor's do more harm than good these days. god forbid the government teaches people how to take care of themselves so they don't need as much rotten medical attention. these healthcare deals in mass. that a consevetive republican happened to have rammed down our throats does nothing but make doctor's, hostpitals, insurance company's and drug company's keep up their second homes in martha's vinyard or the hampton's at the expense of the citizens of this country.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by slewis

Maybe the theory Lambo is the same as someone who expects not to have to pay that portion of property tax that's used to fund education if he or she has no children.

Health care debate aside, if it's for the whole of society, the courts will probably rule the tax legal.

I never agreed with that ripoff either. Why should I become a surrogate parent and help pick up the tab to pay for someone else's kid? You see, once you go down this collectivism path, it can only lead one to the end of a steep cliff. Why shouldn't property owners also pay for the day care center's tab for working parents' kids, too? That, too, would benefit society. Or why shouldn't property owners pick up the tab for school clothing for parents' kids?

HCAP thinks that we all have some kind of civil or human right to essentially all the necessities in life, too, such as food, shelter and clothing. What happens when more and more people start asking, "Why am I working for me and someone else, too?", and wants to get on the gravy train of freebies? Very slippery slope this socialism thingy. Ask the students in the UK who are having cows because the government told them their tuition is going to be tripled. I guess they think they have a right to free or dirt cheap education.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

I'm glad to know (med. part B only deducted from soc. security check).

[jognlope]

I wish more of this would happen: "If you want a CT scan tonight, it'll be $1,300." just happened to type that in a report. But still ct scans are being done as "renal stone protocol" in the ER if the patient complaints of flank pain. Isn't there some way to tell if a person has a stone without a ct scan?

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by jognlope

I wish more of this would happen: "If you want a CT scan tonight, it'll be $1,300." just happened to type that in a report. But still ct scans are being done as "renal stone protocol" in the ER if the patient complaints of flank pain. Isn't there some way to tell if a person has a stone without a ct scan?

Finding a renal stone is easy with an IVP. The problem arises in that an aneurysm can often present like a renal stone. If you miss an aneurysm , then be set to be sued. This is what is called defensive medicine.

[jognlope]

Oh right. Ugh. And dont' leave it to PAs to go against the grain, who order them faster than a big Mac.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by jognlope

Isn't there some way to tell if a person has a stone without a ct scan?

Localize HC costs. Have a bake sale or sell tickets for people to watch a bird talk. Gather a cool mil to buy a CT machine. Then anyone who contributed can have FREE CT scans anytime they wish.

The hypochondriacs in the bunch will drop like flies from radiation of having weekly scans. The 'devil may cares' will live life today and give little thought to dropping but they'll drop nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/business/29scan.html

[jognlope]

Thanks for the article, will read again later, only got to page 3, living on rye bread today, which is not a bad bread to live on with a little raspberry jam.

[DJofSD]

Today's ruling in the VA district court.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by jognlope

I'm glad to know (med. part B only deducted from soc. security check).

But only if the SS recipient CHOOSES to go with B. Part B ISN'T forced upon the recipient. Big dif.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Owning an automobile and driving is not manditory. It's optional. If you opt to own a car and drive you are required to provide a means to compensate others in the event of an accident. Compensation can be in the form of insurance, a bond or self-insurance. Health insurance is not the same as car insurance because the underlying situation, being alive, is not the same. Being alive is not a choice.

Owning an automobile and driving is not mandatory; there is no law requiring you to do either. But, it's not optional either for many people. We have a fairly extensive public transit system in the Chicago area. Yet, if I wanted to take public transit to work (before I retired) I would have to take three different buses. What took me twenty minutes in my car would take me almost two hours by bus. Or I could take a cab and spend $50 a day. Driving and owning a car is necesary in many cases, even if not mandatory.
Being alive is not mandatory just because you have no choice in the matter. No one outside your self requires you to be alive.