Senate adds penalty for going uninsured to healthcare bill

[thackney]

Here is a fact sheet on uncompensated care provided by hospitals ,  put out by the American Hospital Association.

Since 2000, hospitals of all types have provided more than $538 billion in uncompensated care to their patients.  However, significantly,  that number does NOT include other unfunded costs of care, such as underpayments from Medicare and Medicaid. 

Want to know why your private insurance (non-Medicare or Medicaid) is so high?   You're paying for all the above.   What's happening is selective socialism -  some of us are paying more to finance uncompensated or under-compensated care provided to others.   

Thank you for that link.  Page three validates my claim the uncompensated care is a small part of the total cost.

[Silver Pines]

I'm not.  I pay more - my employer pays more - for health insurance because of folks who refuse to cover themselves and then demand treatment when they get sick.   No, I don't want folks dying in the street - and some here seem perfectly comfortable with the concept, especially for those "less virtuous" than themselves.

@Jazzhead

"Dying in the streets" is as much of a thing as manmade global warming.  See, there comes a time when the meme you're pushing becomes as threadbare as Grandpa's old work shirt, and you have to find a new one. 

It's that time.

[Silver Pines]

But ObamaCare still attempts to address the "selective socialism" aspect of the current system (see my post above), by "forcing" everybody to be responsible and carry insurance.   Conservatives don't like that assault on their liberty,  but are perfectly willing to allow others to pick up the tab for the sick.

@Jazzhead

Sorry, that's unConstitutional.

[EC]

Never seen a story about someone dying in the street for want of health care. Seen plenty about health care bankrupcies.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

Sorry, that's unConstitutional.

Yeah, but single payer isn't.  Be careful what you wish for.   

[Suppressed]

The only TV news I watch is local, and I have never seen a single story about someone in the community dying because healthcare was too expensive.  Not one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200827.html

But, in general, yes...government has done a great job in requiring treatment for those without insurance or means.

The trouble is, someone is paying for that.  It's not magically free.

Who should pay?  The hospital?  Why?  Doctors?  Why? 

Yeah, the people themselves should pay, if they didn't purchase coverage.  And if they don't have the means, then what?

[Bigun]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200827.html

But, in general, yes...government has done a great job in requiring treatment for those without insurance or means.

The trouble is, someone is paying for that.  It's not magically free.

Who should pay?  The hospital?  Why?  Doctors?  Why? 

Yeah, the people themselves should pay, if they didn't purchase coverage.  And if they don't have the means, then what?

Where I live there is a hospital district funded by the taxpayers so indigent care has never been dropped on any single group or individual but if it were left up to me the people who received such care would have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.

[thackney]

Yeah, but single payer isn't.  Be careful what you wish for.

Would you point to the Constitutional passage that give this authority to legislature?

[Jazzhead]

Would you point to the Constitutional passage that give this authority to legislature?

Oh, I'm sure its the good 'ol Commerce and General Welfare clauses.   Medicare and Medicaid are single payer;  I'm sure it's not a Constitutional reach to extend them to the entire population.   

The Constitution isn't going to stop the forward march of the entitlement state.   No, that will require backbone on the part of the legislature.   

[Silver Pines]

Yeah, but single payer isn't.  Be careful what you wish for.

Dennis Kucinich said it, so it must be true!

[Silver Pines]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030200827.html

But, in general, yes...government has done a great job in requiring treatment for those without insurance or means.

The trouble is, someone is paying for that.  It's not magically free.

Who should pay?  The hospital?  Why?  Doctors?  Why? 

Yeah, the people themselves should pay, if they didn't purchase coverage.  And if they don't have the means, then what?

@Suppressed

I think that's a debate that can be had after repealing Obamacare.  Those questions can't get in the way of the fact that the GOP restoration of Obamacare would be a disaster.

[txradioguy]

Yeah, but single payer isn't.  Be careful what you wish for.

It's just as unconstitutional.

[txradioguy]

Oh, I'm sure its the good 'ol Commerce and General Welfare clauses.   Medicare and Medicaid are single payer;  I'm sure it's not a Constitutional reach to extend them to the entire population.   

The Constitution isn't going to stop the forward march of the entitlement state.   No, that will require backbone on the part of the legislature.

And you'd be wrong on both instances.

It's an extreme reach and actually a reach too far. 

Your complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution comes shining through yet again.

[Jazzhead]

And you'd be wrong on both instances.

It's an extreme reach and actually a reach too far. 

Your complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution comes shining through yet again.

What case do you cite for your position,  in opposition to my "complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution"?   Medicare and Medicaid have, you know, been the law of the land for decades.   

Bullying doesn't paper over your ignorance. 

[txradioguy]

What case do you cite for your position,  in opposition to my "complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution"?   Medicare and Medicaid have, you know, been the law of the land for decades.   

Bullying doesn't paper over your ignorance.

Medicaid and Medicare aren't "law" you dolt...they are programs that can and should be ended...they aren't constitutional and they are two of the biggest drags on the economy and the Federal Budget out there.

Show me where in the Constitution it allows for either welfare program.

Not that factual evidence will ever matter when it comes to you...but once again...I'll demonstrate why you're wrong.

As for your ridiculous claim about single payer being Constitutional...again allow me to show how lacking your knowledge of the Constitution is.

The problem with establishing a government-run single-payer health care system in the United States is that to do so would require the government to nationalize every private health-care firm in the country -- or put them out of business.

That would violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which bars the government  from taking private property for public use  -- unless the government pays compensation to the owners of the private firms it nationalizes. And such compensation would run into the trillions of dollars.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/8/739981/-

[thackney]

Oh, I'm sure its the good 'ol Commerce and General Welfare clauses.   Medicare and Medicaid are single payer;  I'm sure it's not a Constitutional reach to extend them to the entire population.   

The Constitution isn't going to stop the forward march of the entitlement state.   No, that will require backbone on the part of the legislature.

Regulating Commerce isn't the same as the federal government taking over all the commerce in an industry.  Are you claiming there are no optional coverage for those covered under Medicare/Medicaid?

Promote the General Welfare isn't the same as force the welfare either.

I agree as long as we accept politicians that will ignore the constitution, the Constitution won't stand as a force.  Voters need to make that more important.  Conservatives need to do more to educate the importance of the Constitution.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Us arguing that this and that social program is "unconstitutional" is pretty useless. USSC has ruled them constitutional.

So using that as an argument against is likely to fall flat in the public arena.

BTW, I agree on their lack of constitutionality.

[thackney]

What case do you cite for your position,  in opposition to my "complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution"?   Medicare and Medicaid have, you know, been the law of the land for decades.   

Bullying doesn't paper over your ignorance.

You are not required by law to be on Medicare/Medicaid.  Some are not.

https://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/get-parts-a-and-b/should-you-get-part-b/should-i-get-part-b.html#collapse-5786

[roamer_1]

ObamaCare, of course,  takes the approach in (E) -  that's the hated individual mandate.   But as Suppressed implies, it IS a fundamentally conservative solution,  bolstering the private insurance market under a regime of community rating by broadening the risk pool.   

NO. This is not a Conservative solution. It is a socialist one. Redistribution, plain and simple. No Conservative solution would have redistribution at it's core. Again, a Conservative plan would reduce regulation, increase competition, remove cronyism causing monopoly, and let market forces perform as they ought and as they will.

The Dems' alternative if this doesn't work is single payer.  What are the solutions proposed by conservatives?   Most here, it appears, essentially favor (C) -  forcing the cost on to hospitals obliged to treat the uninsured,  and distorting the private insurance market in the process.    How the hell is that an acceptable alternative?

THIS is single payer. It is where it will inevitably lead.

And how can any private insurance market rationally function without real penalties for free riders?   It is astonishing - well, astonishingly dishonest intellectually -  to read some here complaining about measures to address free riders,  and even characterizing such behavior as somehow noble.   It IS rational behavior (everyone wants something for nothing), but also exceedingly selfish.   

This will create MORE 'free riders', not less. This claim is so very disingenuous that it can be declared a damnable lie.
 

No private insurance system can function if folks can purchase insurance only when they need it.   As has been pointed out - that's not insurance at all, but pure and simple welfare.

Which is exactly what this does.

[roamer_1]

Sure, you can say private charity will pick up slack, but there's no way that will happen with the level of costs today.  And those costs aren't all from a lack of competition or government regulation.  People have clamored for better and better healthcare...1970s care is still cheap.  It's the advancements that cost.

BALONEY!
The costs are inflated just the very same way that the cost of gasoline was jacked up to four dollars a gallon. Now it's a buck eighty. What artificially propped up the market on gas? What knocked those props out, to give us reasonable prices to gas AND good access to gas?

What needs to happen is to identify what is propping up the prices, and remove those props to let the market bear as it normally would.

Making insurance illegal would do more in the right direction than making insurance mandatory.

[roamer_1]

Thank you for that link.  Page three validates my claim the uncompensated care is a small part of the total cost.

I have no doubt my little painting business wrote off more than 6% in non-payment every year.

[roamer_1]

Yeah, but single payer isn't.  Be careful what you wish for.

YES, 'single payer' most certainly IS unconstitutional.

[roamer_1]

Where I live there is a hospital district funded by the taxpayers so indigent care has never been dropped on any single group or individual but if it were left up to me the people who received such care would have to make restitution to the greatest extent possible.

Where everyone lives there is county health services. Paid for by the local taxes. Likely there are state services too, paid for by state taxes. there is little need for the federal behemoth to impose itself on 1/7th of the economy 'for the chidrenn'.

[RoosGirl]

BALONEY!
The costs are inflated just the very same way that the cost of gasoline was jacked up to four dollars a gallon. Now it's a buck eighty. What artificially propped up the market on gas? What knocked those props out, to give us reasonable prices to gas AND good access to gas?

What needs to happen is to identify what is propping up the prices, and remove those props to let the market bear as it normally would.

Making insurance illegal would do more in the right direction than making insurance mandatory.

I have long thought that getting rid of insurance for everyone would lower medical care prices.  I figured out a while ago that private doctor's offices will often reduce the amount you owe them if you just ask them for a discount.  That to me means that after collecting their fee from insurance and waiting on the remainder that you owe out of pocket, they've padded the price quite a bit.  Say it's MSRP versus invoice. 

[thackney]

I have long thought that getting rid of insurance for everyone would lower medical care prices.  I figured out a while ago that private doctor's offices will often reduce the amount you owe them if you just ask them for a discount.  That to me means that after collecting their fee from insurance and waiting on the remainder that you owe out of pocket, they've padded the price quite a bit.  Say it's MSRP versus invoice.

When I have had large deductible plans, I have offered to pay cash at time of service and nearly always received a significant discount.  I kept track of charges and if I approached the deductible, ran them through the insurance.

For some, that was a 50% discount.  Just asked once, no begging or pleading, price cut in half.  I don't think it was ever less than 20% discount.