Should the Supreme Court strike down the healthcare law?

[ByFaithAlone]

Thanks for a spirited discussion. Although our political points of view are different, I can say that you have presented yours well.

Thanks! The same to you as well.

One of the problems that has been mentioned is the fact that regardless of their ability to pay, everyone who shows up at a hospital emergency room receives medial treatment.

I don't have an exact dollar figure as to how much that costs the medical system - but whatever it is I'll agree it is a problem that should be addressed.

I suppose the question is: How best to address it?

Is there a "non-government" way to address it? Is there a way to address it that does not involve overhauling the entire medical system?

And then - as a corollary to those questions: Did I miss where Obama addressed that problem in particular? Did he seek out advice from non-partisan sources - or did he already have a pre-conceived "solution" to the problem?

All very good questions. I would say that the only way to truly address it is to make sure everyone can pay for healthcare or else there will always be someone who can't pay in the emergency room. How best to do that is a tough question. Private companies won't pay for everyone because they want to maintain their profit margins, an understandable and reasonable goal. That leaves charities, which do not have the resources or the government, which is the one who ultimately decided to step in. I agree that the Dems definitely had a pre-concieved notion of how to deal with the problem but I really don't see another way out of the problem.

Next, I want to comment on what you said about supply and demand. Although you and I agree that "supply and demand" eventually creates a level of equilibrium, I'm not sure we as a society are going to be comfortable where that level comes to rest.

Unlike the supply and demand - say - of personal computers or cellphones - which started out very expensive but became cheaper as supply eventually exceeded demand - I don't see that happening (at least in the near term) with healthcare.

The "supply" of healthcare - for the reasons I stated in my previous post - is going to remain limited.

I agree that healthcare will remain expensive but I don't think, for the exact same reason with supply and demand that the costs will dramatically increase (especially for the average consumer).

But if someone cannot afford healthcare, are we prepared as a society to let them "do without?" I don't think so - and that's the crux of the problem.

I think this goes back to the idea of the essence of a democratic form of government in which the citizens of this country have decided that a basic standard quality of life must be given to each individual. That is the reason we have groups like the FDA, sanitation depts, etc.

And I will always believe that. (and that, and $2.75, will get me a cup of Coffee at Starbucks)

Not with inflation increasing at the rate it is lol

[ByFaithAlone]

What group did Obamacare create that didn't already exist that caused the change in Mammograms?

It wasnt a group he created. It is the influence his administration has over government groups. They can nudge and force any federal agency to go along with their viewpoint. The mammogram thing sent shockwaves into the medical community because it was such a bad policy change. When the feds determine standards of when some test should be done, the insurance companies follow it. It is standard procedure for hmo's to go along with federal health care standards.

Just to clear this up:

A. This is not a federal guideline nor has it ever been. It is an independent advisory committee called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

From CNN, Nov 2009 (when the guidelines changed): A federal advisory board's recommendation that women in their 40s should avoid routine mammograms is not government policy and has caused "a great deal of confusion," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday.

B. Furthermore the commission says that at-risk patients should continue to take these mammograms.

Here was what they wrote: "Screening mammograms before age 50 should not be done routinely and should be based on a woman's values regarding the risks and benefits of mammography."

C. Also it is not under control of the President.

From the US Preventative Services Task Force website: "Created in 1984, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent group of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or preventive medications. The USPSTF is made up of 16 volunteer members who come from the fields of preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics/gynecology, and nursing. All members volunteer their time to serve on the USPSTF, and most are practicing clinicians."

Furthermore this panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush. See http://www.nytimes.c.../20prevent.html

Any claim that this is the President's fault is just a conspiracy claim and political hype (see article above).

[ayin jade]

The great thing about supply and demand is that it goes to equilibrium so if we fix demand at a certain point, supply will increase as to meet the need.

In the case of healthcare, this wont be happening. I have heard from doctors, as had my husband (we both are in the medical profession), who are more willing to retire or change jobs than stay in the health care system under obamacare. The same with other fields in healthcare. There are already shortages in healthcare workers to begin with. This will definitely not increase supply. Why? Because it isnt worth going to school for all those years any more. Its too expensive and working in those fields is far too stressful any more.

You will also see medical advances slow down or outright cease. There will no longer be a financial reason for anyone to try and research or develop new procedures or medicines.

[ayin jade]

What group did Obamacare create that didn't already exist that caused the change in Mammograms?

It wasnt a group he created. It is the influence his administration has over government groups. They can nudge and force any federal agency to go along with their viewpoint. The mammogram thing sent shockwaves into the medical community because it was such a bad policy change. When the feds determine standards of when some test should be done, the insurance companies follow it. It is standard procedure for hmo's to go along with federal health care standards.

Just to clear this up:

A. This is not a federal guideline nor has it ever been. It is an independent advisory committee called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

From CNN, Nov 2009 (when the guidelines changed): A federal advisory board's recommendation that women in their 40s should avoid routine mammograms is not government policy and has caused "a great deal of confusion," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday.

B. Furthermore the commission says that at-risk patients should continue to take these mammograms.

Here was what they wrote: "Screening mammograms before age 50 should not be done routinely and should be based on a woman's values regarding the risks and benefits of mammography."

C. Also it is not under control of the President.

From the US Preventative Services Task Force website: "Created in 1984, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent group of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or preventive medications. The USPSTF is made up of 16 volunteer members who come from the fields of preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics/gynecology, and nursing. All members volunteer their time to serve on the USPSTF, and most are practicing clinicians."

Furthermore this panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush. See http://www.nytimes.c.../20prevent.html

Any claim that this is the President's fault is just a conspiracy claim and political hype (see article above).

Fred, any presidential administration can influence any branch of the feds. And even if its not so called mandatory, it is how the hmo's decide their health care rules. You cannot get health care that goes against what the feds say is the standard of care. Try getting an expensive medicine through your health care provider that is for a condition that is not part of its fda labeling. Try getting a procedure or test done that is not in keeping with federal guidelines and see who ends up paying for it. It wont be the health care provider. It will be you. That is the reality of the marketplace.

[ayin jade]

All very good questions. I would say that the only way to truly address it is to make sure everyone can pay for healthcare or else there will always be someone who can't pay in the emergency room. How best to do that is a tough question. Private companies won't pay for everyone because they want to maintain their profit margins, an understandable and reasonable goal. That leaves charities, which do not have the resources or the government, which is the one who ultimately decided to step in. I agree that the Dems definitely had a pre-concieved notion of how to deal with the problem but I really don't see another way out of the problem.

The govt has already said that it will limit resources to certain populations. Namely the elderly. Is that fair? I also know, from having worked with the va and public health service, that medical care is always hit by govt cuts in funding and struggles to figure out how to provide services to more with less. Inevitably folks get hurt. Health care will end up limited to those who otherwise would have been able to get it. Having the govt provide health care isnt a good solution. It isnt a solution at all.

[SavedByGrace1980]

Is that fair?

No. But apparently fairness - like beauty - is in the eye of the beholder. Or, more accurately, in the eyes of the mob-ocracy.

And here's a question for those who favor government run health care and the rationing that will inevitably ensue:

Do you REALLY want the government being the sole determinant of your healthcare decisions - and, by extension, the ultimate decider of whether you live or die?

Think about it - and all the implications that may have. (like: how did you vote in the last election? what race/gender/sexual orientation are you? etc. etc.)

Blessings!

-Ed

[other one]

The govt has already said that it will limit resources to certain populations. Namely the elderly. Is that fair?

When and where did they say that?

[ayin jade]

The govt has already said that it will limit resources to certain populations. Namely the elderly. Is that fair?

When and where did they say that?

Obama said it when he was pushing the bill. One of his administration also said it too although I cant recall if that was before or after the bill went through. I also read it in the bill, about limiting resources using fancy wording to mean the govt defines what the best allocation of resources to a population are, population defined as elderly.

[other one]

The govt has already said that it will limit resources to certain populations. Namely the elderly. Is that fair?

When and where did they say that?

Obama said it when he was pushing the bill. One of his administration also said it too although I cant recall if that was before or after the bill went through. I also read it in the bill, about limiting resources using fancy wording to mean the govt defines what the best allocation of resources to a population are, population defined as elderly.

Well someone has to decide who gets limited resources..... and the resources I read about were centered on organ transplants and the fact that we simply don't have enough to go around....... and we Christians fight the genetic research to grow new ones to save lives...... so who do you want to make that decision?

Please don't think I have any trust in our government system, for it has been a pagan disaster from the very start...... but one must look to see that obama, palosi and good old harry didn't get what they wanted out of this bill, so they build themselves up by saying it's just a start.

When the Repubicans win this election, and repeal the health bill, who is going to make the decisions of who gets the limited resrouces in the medical field then? When they start making retired people pay for about half thier medical expenses, how many will die because they can't afford pace makers and such. Healthcare is expensive.... and we either help each other with that expense or we let people die in the streets....... because hospitals can't keep going the way they are. the business models are not sustainable.

So we have a problem. Status Quoe isn't going to last, and no one can come to an agreement on how to fix it.....

and while we are fixated on this, Obama has created a trade group that is about to destroy our soverienty and almost no one is even aware of it..... they are setting up a global trade agreement that would set up a global legal system to settle differences between countries and global corporations.

Something else to think about, did they put Obama in office and let him really mess things up so we would elect Romney (a Mormon) What pagan plans might that fulfill?

Anyway, we'll know tomorrow. Ane we should have been praying that the Lord would put into their minds and hearts what is going to be best for "We the People".

[SavedByGrace1980]

Ane we should have been praying that the Lord would put into their minds and hearts what is going to be best for "We the People".

Who's to say we haven't been?

Blessings!

-Ed