Democrats are working hard to improve the health care bill..

[woodchip]

So you know I am not talking out of the dark end:

\"Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access. \"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -illegals/

[Spidey]

I love political double speak…

If it’s seen as a good thing…it’s government money.
If it’s seen as a bad thing…it’s taxpayer money.

That article made me think of that…

Just replace “government-subsidized” with “hard working taxpayer”.

[Duper]

If so why would not a health provider get into trouble for issuing a policy to said illegal?

Here in Oregon, the immigrant goes into a Gov office and applies for the coverage. An employer has nothing to do with that side of it. So if they fake out the State, it's their bad. One THAT note, Oregon has made it very difficult to get a new or "re-up" your license.
You're required to provide proof of address, your SS card, and a state notarized copy of your birth certificate (proof of citizenship). The amount if Hispanics applying for driver's licenses dropped off the map.

Now if you have a Visa or something like that, there are other provisions, but then you're dealing with other things (on a legal basis).

[Tunnelcat]

TC, if someone breaks into my house and I find them bleeding to death from cutting themselves on the glass door they forced open I'd stop the bleeding out of compassion...but I'd press charges against them for stealing their way into my house out of a sense of protecting my own. It is the same thing only in the case of the illegal aliens my liberal neighbors are going to come tell me I shouldn't press charges and instead contribute to the thieves daily welfare?!?
I don't think so! I don't care how badly the democrats need their vote...illegal votes at that...but of course we need to issue them licenses so they can vote right?!?
Pathetic how you want to ignore the law when it serves your crappy political party and then you have the balls to try and shame me into accepting your blatent democrat fanboyism as logic?!?

Will, why is it when the Republicans pass a health care bill years ago that forces hospitals to care for everyone, including treating illegals just the same as legal citizens, you call it compassionate (which I agree with you by the way), then when the Dems try to pass a bill NOW to try to get coverage for everyone in the U.S. and which DOES NOT have a way to exclude illegals, is now a poison piece of legislation? I don't get it. But for the record, the bill the Dems are trying to pass in it's present form with a mandate and NO public option, is a disaster and a gift to the health insurance cabal, so I'm not a "fanboy" for it at AT ALL!.

TC, you should be happy as that 1% surcharge will also cover the illegal immigrant children. Oh and while we are at it I understand at least one version of Govtcare will allow illegals to buy into national health care. Someone care to explain to me that once the illegal signs up there will not be a ICE agent knocking on his door?
Better yet, if a illegal gets hired by a company, doesn't the employer get into trouble? If so why would not a health provider get into trouble for issuing a policy to said illegal?

Well, if employers weren't allowed to HIRE illegal immigrants, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Oh, ICE does a few raids to keep up appearances of doing a job, but it's a drop in the bucket. So many employers either need them because they can't find workers or just want cheaper labor for a better profit margin, so neither party has had the balls to do something about it. We haven't had immigration reform from EITHER party because it's a hot potato.

By the way, we're already paying for illegals and those who can't pay for health care RIGHT NOW through our soaring insurance premiums. If you're a cash customer, you really get screwed by paying 3 TIMES the going rate that insurance companies have to pay just to make up for the low reimbursements they pay to doctors and hospitals.

[Will Robinson]

TC, if someone breaks into my house and I find them bleeding to death from cutting themselves on the glass door they forced open I'd stop the bleeding out of compassion...but I'd press charges against them for stealing their way into my house out of a sense of protecting my own. It is the same thing only in the case of the illegal aliens my liberal neighbors are going to come tell me I shouldn't press charges and instead contribute to the thieves daily welfare?!?
I don't think so! I don't care how badly the democrats need their vote...illegal votes at that...but of course we need to issue them licenses so they can vote right?!?
Pathetic how you want to ignore the law when it serves your crappy political party and then you have the balls to try and shame me into accepting your blatent democrat fanboyism as logic?!?

Will, why is it when the Republicans pass a health care bill years ago that forces hospitals to care for everyone, including treating illegals just the same as legal citizens, you call it compassionate (which I agree with you by the way), then when the Dems try to pass a bill NOW to try to get coverage for everyone in the U.S. and which DOES NOT have a way to exclude illegals, is now a poison piece of legislation? I don't get it...

You don't get it...or are you ignoring the obvious major differences so you don't have to entertain the point?!?

A bill that provides emergency service for everyone when they are in an emergency situation is not the same thing as a bill that:

*mandates all people have coverage for all aspects of ones health care not just emergency care and provides it free for those under a certain level of income (usted sabe quién que será ) and fines and/or jails you for not complying

*effectively takes over the industry by forcing out private companies

*forcing private citizens out of their workplace policies and onto the government teet by virtue of the impact on the private company thus insuring that they are beholding to the government ever more

* puts government bureaucrats in charge of rationing the care

*claims to finance the new behemoth department using bull★■◆● math that the governments own accounting office already said was bull★■◆●

*will dictate doctors fees and hospital fees (I can't wait to see the quality of the next generation of "doctors" caused by that...think DMV... )

*will rob medicare to pay for the new program

Are you seeing the difference now?!?

Reagans bill was about making sure no one bleeds to death just because they got hurt while over here. And that is all it was about.

The Obama bill is about a lot of things but reducing cost or improving quality are not among them....

[woodchip]

More ominous was a survey that purpoted to say 45% of doctors would consider quitting if health plan went thru. Now if only half of those did so, who will be taking care of the influx of new patients let alone the existing patients?

[dissent]

Let's be clear about what EMTALA was about -

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was included in the COBRA legislation of 1986. It was promulgated to combat the discriminatory practice of some hospitals transferring, discharging, or refusing to treat indigent patients coming to the emergency department because of the high cost associated with diagnosing and treating these patients with emergency medical conditions. While the Act applies to all Medicare participating hospitals, it protects anyone coming to a hospital seeking emergency medical services, not just Medicare beneficiaries. EMTALA imposes strict penalties including fines and exclusion from the Medicare program for violations of the Act. The Act imposes three primary requirements on Medicare participating hospitals that provide emergency medical services.

1. The hospital must provide an appropriate medical screening exam to anyone coming to the ED seeking medical care;

2. For anyone that comes to the hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must treat and stabilize the emergency medical condition, or the hospital must transfer the individual; and

3. A hospital must not transfer an individual with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized unless several conditions are met that includes effecting an appropriate transfer.

http://www.aaem.org/emtala/

On January 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that an individual who presented to a hospital emergency room with a puncture wound to his foot that subsequently became infected, received an appropriate medical screening examination under EMTALA, even if he were improperly or negligently treated. (Hunt v. Lincoln County Memorial Hospital, 8th Cir., No. 02-1151, 1/29/03) The Appeals court found that Hunt could not sue Lincoln County Memorial Hospital (LCMH) under EMTALA on what was essentially a medical malpractice claim. The Appeals Court found that Hunt was examined and received proper instructions on how to care for the wound and that this was \"appropriate for EMTALA purposes.\"

The underlying incident occurred in August 1998 when Hunt stepped on a nail, suffered a puncture wound to his right foot, and was taken by his mother to the LCMH ED. He was examined by two nurses, was asked whether his tetanus shot was current, was advised to keep his foot elevated and the wound clean, and was released. Later that month, his foot became swollen and sore and he was diagnosed at a different hospital with osteomyelitis and cellulitis in his right foot, resulting from infections caused by the nail. He claimed that the infection would not have occurred had the staff at LCMH performed an appropriate medical screening examination and provided the necessary antibiotic treatment.

The Court found that although EMTALA sets forth the examination and treatment requirements for hospitals dealing with patients with emergency medical conditions, it does not establish \"a general federal cause of action for medical malpractice in emergency rooms. . . . It does not guarantee proper diagnosis or provide a federal remedy for medical negligence . . . rather, the EMTALA focuses on uniform treatment of patients presented in hospital emergency departments.\"

http://www.aaem.org/emtala/appealsruling.php

In short, EMTALA was never a comprehensive health care reform bill. What Will said.

Give it up, TC.

[Tunnelcat]

I guess you're right there dissent, the government didn't have to pay for or manage EMTALA, but it's essentially an unfunded mandate that SOMEBODY had to pay for! What really happened is it raised prices for those individuals who COULD pay for their health care! It's just a different form of rationing. The taxpayers don't have to pay for it, but the health consumer gets stuck with higher costs BECAUSE no money was dedicated to compensate hospitals to PAY for the emergency care given to people that CAN'T afford to pay! It was a good idea for protecting patients, but was just a typical Republican-backed government-enforced unfunded mandate.

*mandates all people have coverage for all aspects of ones health care not just emergency care and provides it free for those under a certain level of income (usted sabe quién que será ) and fines and/or jails you for not complying

All people NEED health care, but NOT this mandate to force people to pay money to the private insurance/Wall Street money pit! (A ConservaDem idea by the way.)

*effectively takes over the industry by forcing out private companies

GOOD! They need to either compete fairly or go bankrupt, greedy bastards!

*forcing private citizens out of their workplace policies and onto the government teet by virtue of the impact on the private company thus insuring that they are beholding to the government ever more

Better than whats going to happen in the future as costs continue to skyrocket and more and more people and BUSINESSES can't AFFORD private insurance.

* puts government bureaucrats in charge of rationing the care

And the insurance companies don't do that NOW by denying coverage or claiming some pre-existing illness that's not covered?

*claims to finance the new behemoth department using ***** math that the governments own accounting office already said was *****

I'll agree with that. But seniors seem to have been happy with Medicare for a long time, so it's possible to do. HOWEVER, after the Republican meddling partially privatized Medicare with Medicare Advantage and ONLY subsidized it for 3 years so that it happened to END on the next administration's watch, that costs have now soared for seniors. Taxpayer dollars going to private insurance company profits and NOT health care! Great idea!

*will dictate doctors fees and hospital fees (I can't wait to see the quality of the next generation of "doctors" caused by that...think DMV... Rolling Eyes )

Better than NO CARE AT ALL because people can't afford it! But wait, here's some local Corvallis doctors on tour pushing for single-payer (socialist sacrilege)!

https://madashelldoctorstour.com/

*will rob medicare to pay for the new program

I say "Medicare for all!" at this point and get rid of the Republican privatized mess (Medicare Advantage) that's sucking money from the program that's not going to actual health care!

[Stroodles]

If government got completely out of the way, the costs would not skyrocket indefinently. Based on supply and demand, if it gets to the point where NO ONE uses it, then they are forced to lower the costs. If you meddle with supply & demand you can mess it up, of course, but otherwise it naturally corrects itself. The problem with a lot of healthcare is what Will (I think) posted a while back - can't remember exactly where.

As for the beuracrat thing, well that's true. But that doesn't exactly justify sticking EVEN MORE beuracrats in the way.

[Duper]

as I recall, it was the Government's meddling that caused the whole banking crash. The Feds, by LAW, are supposed to stay out of the private business sector.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, thanks to ConservaDems, Republicans and wimpy Democrats being bought off by the industry or being just plain circle-jerked around, instead of Universal Health Care for all, we're going to get MANDATORY Private Health Insurance for all. Public welfare to big insurance and pharma.

As for government meddling, it was the lack of banking regulation (credit default swaps and adjustable mortgages to those who couldn't possibly afford it) and allowing the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to foreign countries (China) that came before the present over-reaction with the massive bailouts that have made things worse. Both parties are at fault for this whole mess.

[Duper]

It was the Feds that put pressure on the banks to accept high risk loans.

[Stroodles]

Well, thanks to ConservaDems, Republicans and wimpy Democrats being bought off by the industry or being just plain circle-jerked around, instead of Universal Health Care for all, we're going to get MANDATORY Private Health Insurance for all. Public welfare to big insurance and pharma.

As for government meddling, it was the lack of banking regulation (credit default swaps and adjustable mortgages to those who couldn't possibly afford it) and allowing the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to foreign countries (China) that came before the present over-reaction with the massive bailouts that have made things worse. Both parties are at fault for this whole mess.

If people took loans they couldn't afford, I don't see how that is the government's or the bank's fault. The problem is people not wanting to take personal responsibility. They spend more money then they have and then try to find a scapegoat. Of course, from the bank's standpoint, the government..."encouraged" them to accept all those loans that couldn't ever be paid back. Then you have the media hype market crashing for a year. Add it all up, then the market crashes. Gee, what do you know?

To be honest, I don't think the government should be forcing people to buy insurance. If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to. As for Universal Health Care, that would be even worse...I don't want to have to pay for all the people who can't get their own insurance. Someone, I don't feel that that is my responsibility. Not to mention that their taxes have to pay for their inflated 46 million number, which of course includes people who don't want insurance, as well as the illegals.

[Spidey]

In all fairness, I think the government should force all Americans to buy health insurance out of their own pocket…just like they intend to do to the uninsured.

Why should some have subsidized insurance and some not…

I’m talking to a lawyer right now, I need to find some recourse to this total BS.

Possibly a lawsuit against the government for an un-funded mandate, or perhaps a suit against employers for providing something unfairly that is someones “personal responsibility”. (the second one is factious, but you get the point)

It’s your “personal responsibility” so says Mr. Balkass.

Lol, now they are going to legislate “personal responsibility” ……..look out ffolks!!!!! What's next…losing weight?

[Tunnelcat]

If people took loans they couldn't afford, I don't see how that is the government's or the bank's fault. The problem is people not wanting to take personal responsibility. They spend more money then they have and then try to find a scapegoat. Of course, from the bank's standpoint, the government..."encouraged" them to accept all those loans that couldn't ever be paid back. Then you have the media hype market crashing for a year. Add it all up, then the market crashes. Gee, what do you know?

All I know is that when I got married in 1978, you had to put at least 20% of the worth of the house as a down payment to even APPLY for a home loan and we practically had to beg, plead and give up an arm and a leg to get a loan because we hadn't been married long enough to build up a good credit rating. We were both working in good jobs too, but the banks were very picky to whom they loaded their money to back then. All that hassle for the ripoff of an interest rate at around 12%!

Fast forward to late 2007/2008 and the bank money was flowing fast and furious to anybody who wanted a home, whether they could afford it or not and Wall Street was actually betting on mortgage values and whether they would rise or fall in the form of credit default swaps. Now who's personal responsibility was that?

[Spidey]

So…I just watched the News Hour, and they plan to subsidize people under 66 grand, so what’s the point, that just amounts to cost shifting. So you will no longer pay for the uninsured in your premiums, but your taxes instead. (if you believe your premiums will decrease) The insurance companies will pass every penalty directly on to the buyer…just ask tc.

And all those lucky folks above 66 grand get the double whammy, they get to pay out of pocket, “and” subsidize others via their taxes.

Anyway, anybody who believes their premiums will decrease, and they won’t see a tax increase…well, what can I say…the tooth fairy still leaves a quarter for molars.

[Stroodles]

TC-It's the responsibility of the fools that took loans they couldn't afford. I'd like to live in a mansion with big screen tv's and a garage full of sports cars (well, actually, not really), but I CAN'T AFFORD IT. So I live without it. If I took out loans and bought all that stuff, that doesn't make it the bank's fault when I can't pay. I'd have no one to blame but myself.

If a store sells alcohol and cigerettes, and you buy some and give yourself some nasty disease, is it the store's fault? No, it's your own.

TC, when you got married you were something called RESPONSIBLE. You waited until you could actually afford it. And if I had to guess, I'd say that house never got foreclosed on you. Maybe that has something to do with your forethought before you bought the house.

[Duper]

If people took loans they couldn't afford, I don't see how that is the government's or the bank's fault. The problem is people not wanting to take personal responsibility.

Well yes and no.

People want to buy homes. Particularly here in Oregon where those that are fleeing California like to settle. Now, housing prices in this area were out of control. What is NOW going for 124K was about 400K before the crash. The realastate companies know that the Feds are leaning on the banks to approve loans they normally wouldn't. This has been the Fed fix to "stimulate the economy" for the last 20ish years or so. (one guy in particular is responsible, but I forget his name. Old dude) Anyways. Builders and Sellers are aware of all this so they start raising prices as there is no "standard". The buyer has little choice in the matter. They can either live miles and miles out of town to find something more reasonable (I'm talking 20+ miles)or live in an apartment. But here's another problem. Builders/contractors/developers aren't building apartment complexes because it's not as lucrative. Realty companies buy complexes, not individuals. So, the Buyer is Stuck/Suckered into buying a home that is well beyond their budgets. Dumps in this area .. i mean one room shanties.. were going for over 125K.

So I think that calling them irresponsible is a bit harsh when they are pigeon-holed to begin with. On the other hand, they might have been wiser (in hind site) to wait 8 to 10 years in an apartment. But don't dare forget that no one believed that the market would tank like it did. no one in the real world at any rate.

[dissent]

……..look out ffolks!!!!! What's next…losing weight?

you mean they haven't started taxing your doughnuts yet ??????????

[Tunnelcat]

If people took loans they couldn't afford, I don't see how that is the government's or the bank's fault. The problem is people not wanting to take personal responsibility.

Well yes and no.

People want to buy homes. Particularly here in Oregon where those that are fleeing California like to settle. Now, housing prices in this area were out of control. What is NOW going for 124K was about 400K before the crash. The realastate companies know that the Feds are leaning on the banks to approve loans they normally wouldn't. This has been the Fed fix to "stimulate the economy" for the last 20ish years or so. (one guy in particular is responsible, but I forget his name. Old dude) Anyways. Builders and Sellers are aware of all this so they start raising prices as there is no "standard". The buyer has little choice in the matter. They can either live miles and miles out of town to find something more reasonable (I'm talking 20+ miles)or live in an apartment. But here's another problem. Builders/contractors/developers aren't building apartment complexes because it's not as lucrative. Realty companies buy complexes, not individuals. So, the Buyer is Stuck/Suckered into buying a home that is well beyond their budgets. Dumps in this area .. i mean one room shanties.. were going for over 125K.

So I think that calling them irresponsible is a bit harsh when they are pigeon-holed to begin with. On the other hand, they might have been wiser (in hind site) to wait 8 to 10 years in an apartment. But don't dare forget that no one believed that the market would tank like it did. no one in the real world at any rate.

What Duper said. But you COULD sense something was going to crash with the housing market a few years ago. It didn't seem sustainable. To good to be true.

And yes Spidey, Congress is really screwing it up, maybe with with Obama's blessing. We'll see, but I'm not holding my breath at this point.

[Lothar]

when I got married in 1978, you had to put at least 20% of the worth of the house as a down payment to even APPLY for a home loan....Fast forward to late 2007/2008 and the bank money was flowing fast and furious to anybody who wanted a home.... Now who's personal responsibility was that?

Part of the responsibility goes to those in government who decided to force banks to lower their lending standards (by subsidizing loans, enforcing minority quotas, etc.)

Part of it goes to those in the Fed who held interest rates artificially low for so long, thereby making banks looser with their money.

Part of the responsibility goes to whatever accountant realized that those crap loans the banks didn't want could be repackaged and resold to people who didn't realize how much loan standards had slipped since 1978, as well as whatever government official decided such sales should be legal.

Part of it goes to Fannie and Freddy essentially "insuring" the housing industry.

Back in 1978, banks made their loans rationally because they were on the hook if they went bad. In 2008 banks loaned money fast and furious-like because they'd sold off big chunks of the risk and thought the government (or F&F) would back them for the rest. It turned out that the problem had grown so large that it overwhelmed the government backing, and that banks had unwittingly bought exactly the same crap they'd tried to get rid of, which led to quite the impressive market crash.

[Bet51987]

You just can't beat organized greed no matter what party you belong to...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33264375/ns ... ork_times/

Bee

[Insurrectionist]

So the Doctors aren't on Obama's side even though he just had a big brouhaha with doctors at the White House.

Lobbying by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, meanwhile, dimmed the prospects of various proposals to cut into their incomes, including allowing government negotiation of Medicare drug prices and creating a government insurer with the muscle to lower fee payments.

White House even handed out lab coats for the photo op

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/t ... bxCC0TNZHN

[dissent]

Guess which insurance plan rejects more claims than any other .................

http://biggovernment.com/2009/10/05/ama ... re-claims/#

That would be the government-run plan (Medicare) - FTW!

yeah, that makes me feel better.