Interesting system we have. Insurance companies stretch out the process in hopes you die before they have to pay on a claim. Of course, that is if you or your employer can afford insurance.
They borrow leftover prescription drugs from friends, attempt to self-diagnose ailments online, stretch their diabetes and asthma medicines for as long as possible and set their own broken bones. When emergencies strike, they rarely can afford the bills that follow.
“My first reaction was to start laughing — I just kept saying, ‘No way, no way,’ ” Alanna Boyd, a 28-year-old receptionist, recalled of the $17,398 — including $13 for the use of a television — that she was charged after spending 46 hours in October at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan with diverticulitis, a digestive illness. “I could have gone to a major university for a year. Instead, I went to the hospital for two days.”
In the parlance of the health care industry, Ms. Boyd, whose case remains unresolved, is among the “young invincibles” — people in their 20s who shun insurance either because their age makes them feel invulnerable or because expensive policies are out of reach. Young adults are the nation’s largest group of uninsured — there were 13.2 million of them nationally in 2007, or 29 percent, according to the latest figures from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York.
[…]
Young adults are the nation’s largest group of uninsured — there were 13.2 million of them nationally in 2007, or 29 percent, according to the latest figures from the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York.
[…]
“There’s a big sense of urgency,” said Susan Sherry, the deputy director of Community Catalyst. She described uninsured young adults as especially vulnerable. “People are losing their jobs, and a lot of jobs don’t carry health insurance. They’re new to the work force, they’ve been covered under their parents or school plans, and then they drop off the cliff.”
#66, Off Topic:
Paddy-O, you were inquiring about states who were fighting for their sovereignty from the federal government.
http://tinyurl.com/ah6sb4
Here’s another one. People are stopping the sponsor in the hall to sign their names to it.
#68 Thank you.
I am glad this is being done, it is needed. However, it the worst possible condemnation of the Congress & current Administration.
#69, I don’t know that it says anything specifically about the current administration or Congress so much as it shows a growing dissatisfaction with the evolved state of our federal system in general.
#68 – Ironically, I believe this petition is outside the scope of Texas’ legislature, as the state legislature cannot, in turn, tell the federal legislature/judiciary what they can do.
# 71 Alex said, “Ironically, I believe this petition is outside the scope of Texas’ legislature, as the state legislature cannot, in turn, tell the federal legislature/judiciary what they can do.”
Correct. They can however tell the Texas gov’t to ignore any unconstitutional law or mandate from the Fed Gov’t.
#68, the only comment I have about that resolution right now is that I wonder the point of objecting to so-called “power of the purse” federal mandates.
The general idea of putting terms of use on federal money doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that the federal government is taking such a disproportionately large chunk of money out of the states and then doling it back out to them with strings attached. Since most government programs are state programs, the states should be collecting more taxes than the federal government does, yet our current situation is the exact opposite.
#72 – Yes, but the argument is that the 14th amendment prohibits the Texas legislature from passing such a law. (IE, what makes one federal law different from, say, Title IX or the Equal Rights Act; and specifically, who gave the Texas legislature the power to choose which laws to ignore).
If a law is unconstitutional, sure, the state (if it affects the state) as well as those individuals affected by it are capable of challenging such a law.
# 74 Alex said, “Yes, but the argument is that the 14th amendment prohibits the Texas legislature from passing such a law.”
Except that the 14th says no such thing.
#61, SL, & # 62, Loser,
RE: #55, Ya ya, I want to read some stupid piece some asshole decided was not just his opinion but true. HE’S AN EFFEN BLOGGER for effen sakes!!!
If you have a comment or an opinion then please share it. Don’t expect me (or anyone else) to go read someone’s opinion on another blog. Why? If you say something to say, then say it. If you are claiming a FACT, then back it up with source material. Pointing to someone’s opinion on his own blog does not count as source material.
Too many high tech tests? Incredible costs? Talk to the trial lawyers about why. Will a Federally funded single payer system indemnify all the practitioners? Who will your lawyer sue when you have a bad outcome?
75 – Not specifically, but it’s been taken to mean by the courts that states *have* to follow the federal law at least as a minimum. (I’m paraphrasing really, really, broadly, mind you.) It’s a stretch, I agree, but I could see the argument being made.
It’s kind of a reverse vagueness argument:
1) States must afford citizens the same protections as the Federal law;
2) “Protection” can be defined as pro-active (health-care, to make it relevant) or reactive (first amendment);
3) The Federal legislature/courts determine what’s Constitutional under the Federal constitution/law
4) State laws therefore cannot ignore a “protective” Federal law (without challenging its constitutionality, which invalidates the whole shebang, both state and federal.)
Like I said, stretch. Still, I find it amusing enough.
# 78 Alex said, “Not specifically, but it’s been taken to mean by the courts that states *have* to follow the federal law at least as a minimum.”
Right. The highest law of the land is the Constitution. So, if a Fed law violates the constitution, obeying it would be violating the Constitution…
So, states should follow the Constitution. That’s what the Texas proclamation is all about.
#76, Fusion, fusion, fusion…
Interpretation is all about opinion. But some opinions are supported by the historical context and some are not. Your tires have been flat for 15 miles now, yet you still insist on driving on the rims.
Yes, I posted a link to an analysis by somebody else, which I concur with and found to be succinct enough to be useful here without having to re-invent the wheel myself. I noticed you’ve done nothing to refute the content of the piece, but would rather attack the venue where it resides – a blog. You even were good enough to call the guy an asshole.
A+ for you.
#61, SL,
The onus is on you to show why the power to enact these programs exists in its present form, and not on Paddy-O or anybody else to prove that it doesn’t, as you are demanding.
I have NOT asked Cow-Patty to ever prove a negative. Many times I have asked him to show where in the Constitution it is what he claims, which is to prove a positive. If you or anyone else claims that the Constitution says the Government may or may not do something, then asking to show where the Constitution forbids that is not asking him to prove a negative.
Now why would I suggest the Constitution allows the Government to set up Universal Health Care? Read this.
McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
Gonzales v. Raich: 2005
Two Supreme Court rulings. One from early in our history and the second quite recent. They reinforce that the Federal Government has the power to regulate commerce.
Like it or not or even agree or not, the facts remain the Federal Government has also taken up Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Civil Rights, Occupational Safety, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, Food and Drugs, Interstate Accommodation discrimination, and children’s sleepwear. Every program has been upheld by the courts as within the right of Congress to enact under the Commerce Clause.
Now. Prove me wrong. The last time we had Liberty Loser crying that they shouldn’t do it and babbling about things that don’t exist. Cow-Patty won’t even try to answer because he knows he has lost before he starts.
Why is my comment being flagged as spam??? I used two links to back up points. Email the administrator? Sure, give me his address.
I’m breaking this comment into two pieces.
#61, SL,
The onus is on you to show why the power to enact these programs exists in its present form, and not on Paddy-O or anybody else to prove that it doesn’t, as you are demanding.
I have NOT asked Cow-Patty to ever prove a negative. Many times I have asked him to show where in the Constitution it is what he claims, which is to prove a positive. If you or anyone else claims that the Constitution says the Government may or may not do something, then asking to show where the Constitution forbids that is not asking him to prove a negative.
Now why would I suggest the Constitution allows the Government to set up Universal Health Care? Read this.
McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
[Mr. Fusion, there is a setting in the spam filter to catch messages when one person leaves more than 50 in one day. I raised it. You shouldn’t have any more problems. – ed.]
Second part of #81
Gonzales v. Raich: 2005
Two Supreme Court rulings. One from early in our history and the second quite recent. They reinforce that the Federal Government has the power to regulate commerce.
Like it or not or even agree or not, the facts remain the Federal Government has also taken up Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Civil Rights, Occupational Safety, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, Food and Drugs, Interstate Accommodation discrimination, and children’s sleepwear. Every program has been upheld by the courts as within the right of Congress to enact under the Commerce Clause.
Now. Prove me wrong. The last time we had Liberty Loser crying that they shouldn’t do it and babbling about things that don’t exist. Cow-Patty won’t even try to answer because he knows he has lost before he starts.
# 81 Mr. Fusion said, “Why is my comment being flagged as spam???”
Are you logged into the blog when this happens?
# 81 Mr. Fusion said, “I have NOT asked Cow-Patty to ever prove a negative. Many times I have asked him to show where in the Constitution it is what he claims, which is to prove a positive. ”
I see. You have a basic misunderstanding of what the Constitution is. Okay, I get it.
#72, Cow-Patty,
Correct. They can however tell the Texas gov’t to ignore any unconstitutional law or mandate from the Fed Gov’t.
Uumm, no they can’t. Everyone is governed by all duly passed and signed (enacted) laws. The only way to challenge a law is through the courts. A legislature may not tell another legislature what to do or which laws to obey.
#84, Cow-Patty,
So what is your point?
You claimed The Constitution forbids Congress can regulate wages. Show us where it says that. You have been asked many times and still haven’t.
Then you just claimed that the Constitution gives the President the “executive power” to unilaterally overturn treaties. But you post some made up drivel when pressed to post where in the Constitution it said that.
#81, you post a reference to McCulloch v Maryland, dealing with the Second Bank of the United States as a necessary means to exercise the federal power of taxing and spending, as justification for universal healthcare (which itself is the end)? I don’t think that ruling says what you think it says, unless you want to go for the general welfare angle, for which I will again refer you to the piece I linked earlier.
—–
Oh, I’ve just had an epiphany. I see where you are going with this whole thing. The congress has the power to regulate commerce. Unhealthy people have a diminished capacity to engage in commerce, so in order to better regulate said commerce, the government needs to be able to ensure that the means to stay healthy are provided for. It’s all making sense to me now. It’s like I’ve been possessed with the spirit of FDR.
#88, cont.
Oh snap! I think you’ve just helped me stumble onto the reasoning to demand that the feds give me a free house to live in. I can’t buy stuff if I’ve got nowhere to put it.
Fusion, you are wonderful!
XOXO
#29–michael==You say: “bobbo, why do you always want to be the one who knows everything about everything? // I don’t. I do know a few things about a few things. Note all the threads I don’t post on.
You can’t be the expert in all areas. /// Or even an expert in one. I never refer to any special knowledge or expertise==other than reading the dictionary.
Go away/// tsk, tsk. Look within yourself grasshopper.
BUT–let me not forget to thank you for quite a compliment. Intended or otherwise, still noted.
#30–Paddy-O==re constitutionality and the power of the commerce clause.
I’d look it up if I cared, but I am still disgusted that anti-discrimination laws were not enforced via the 13th Amendment or even “natural rights” or any of various other provisions of the Constitution.
No–these basic human rights were enforced by the Federal Government thru the – – – – – COMMERCE Clause.
As I recall, not renting motels or making other private accomodations to blacks as they traveled across this free land of ours had a negative impact on COMMERCE. Ironic no? Their humans rights are championed by a property interest?
Or maybe given the temperature of the times, National Healthcare could be passed by the President under his Commander in Chief duties in order to keep people healthy in order to die in wars?
Lots of ways to wiggle unless you have some other motive in mind.
#88, SL,
Oh, I’ve just had an epiphany.
I had one of those. Doctor removed it no problem
😉
OK, getting serious,
The point has been claimed that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution to initiate universal health care. I say they do have the authority and posted two Supreme Court decisions laying out the base for that comment.
As for the legitimacy of Medicare and Medicaid, both programs have been upheld by the Supreme Court. If a single payer system can be legal for the elderly and the poor, then I don’t see how it wouldn’t be for everyone else. That isn’t a philosophical argument, its a legal point.
#46–SL==”#10, and bobbo, the typical Liberal, can’t seem to make a point without name calling and a ham-fisted hysterical tirade.” /// hah,hah. Yes, I am trying to cut back on the stupids, dolts, retards, self-centered commentary==but it fits so well. Not so much name calling as insightful labeling. Feels good every time I do it. What is a name when the subject at hand is usually 1000’s of people living in misery because of the “intelligent” policy being advocated?
But #10? – – Really? Calling someone a LIEBERTARIAN while posting three lies to go with it. You really think that is bad form?
I am reminded that: “Sticks and stones, can break your bones, but words can break your heart.” Mend your broken feelings and look to the substance.
#59–Nimby==jujitsu? Thats not fair. Admitting to part of my argument while disagreeing with others gives your disagreement more authority than warranted. Well done.
You are more an insider than I imagined and therefor more subject to criticism.
First. I envy your job, daily experience, and life experience not as a doctor but as anyone who gets to develop and apply their expertise over this world. Cash income is one income. Psychic is another. Your amassed personal wealth is immense.
As you have NO PERSONAL STAKE I would think with your experience and caring you would have more to offer on how to make the healthcare delivery system in the USA work better than to say “I am simply against nationalized healthcare even though it affects me almost not at all. I am in favor of doing something about the costs and the insurance industry.” How cute! The unnecessary burden, cost, and interference of the insurance industry could be eliminated by going to a National Healthcare Plan. Can you be any more vague and conflicting???????
Second: “A lot of people will not go to a doctor – no matter the cost.” /// I’ll put “a lot” in the same category of “costs went up 4-5 times in a couple of years.” – – – Ok, yea sure. Bias overcoming your expertise. Amusing.
Third: Costs don’t go up 3-4 times in a couple of years–at least not on an apple to apple comparison. Charges may go up that fast, but not costs. If you continue to aver the same, you demonstrate why doctors make lousy managers.
Fourth: “I wouldn’t say MOST ((incompetent doctors are ignored)) but you do have a good point” /// Thank you and I take your point as well. Ok—ALL incompetent doctors are ignored for years before action is taken. It starts in med school with the very low failure rate. Once accepted baby–you are “in the club.” The financial, political, fraternal, professional incentives are all aligned to let the negligent sleepy dogs lie. But the profession needs to keep the happy face on it again to avoid lay oversight. Oh well, where would rural care be without these stalwarts?
Last: “But – please don’t accuse me of being a medical insider and lining my own nest.” /// Ok, just years of experience in management and clinical aspects of the delivery of healthcare in the USA and world over and you have no suggestions for any changes.
Is that about right snookums? As a doctor, you should have more to contribute to a thread other than your own charity credentials before being a champion for the status quo.
You can do better, reach down and deal with the variables, the trade-offs, the doables vs the impossibles. Challenge the system.
It would break my heart as well to see the disparities of care/position that you see daily in Thailand. I just don’t get why you don’t see the same thing in the USA? Same issues – different degree==thats all. The fact that you are saddened by Thailand yet accepting of the USA condition is what has me on edge.
I won’t apologize for that. Instead, I’ll invite you to the same level of concern.
God I hope we end up in a nuclear war soon so we don’t have to worry about this shit anymore.
#89 Sea Lawyer – Oh snap! I think you’ve just helped me stumble onto the reasoning to demand that the feds give me a free house to live in. I can’t buy stuff if I’ve got nowhere to put it.
Fusion, you are wonderful!
XOXO
I scared the shit out of my cat laughing!
The problems are lawyers, doctors and Rx companies. They have a system where they get rich and everyone else gets crewed.
Lawyers drive up the cost of healthcare because if a doctor doesn’t perform dozens of generally unneeded tests, if there is a lawsuit, the doctor will be pronounced guilty and 000’s go to the lawyer and 00’s go to their client.
Doctors get rich, because they can. Prescribe a test, get kickback, prescribe a drug, get kickback, talk to a patient for 20 seconds, bill the insurance company for a visit. Consult on a case for 30 seconds, whether you are asked to or not, bill the insurance company. No wonder they want to force everyone to have insurance. If everyone has insurance, they don’t have to worry about non-payers. They only need to hire people to do the insurance company dance. The medical profession is nothing more than a psuedo governmental financial rape institution.
The RX companies, make up diseases so they can sell drugs to cover them. Many times, the “problem” is just getting older. But never fear, for only $200/month for life they can make you feel better for the first 30 days. By then, you wouldn’t notice it if you had never taken the drug. Oh, and most of the drugs have significant side effects. If you really really want to get sick, take a couple of drugs like migraine and allergy medications for a period of time, and next thing you know, you’re taking 12-15 medications due to the side effects of the first 2.
And don’t forget 50% of a persons lifetime medical expense happens in the last 5 years of life.
My vote, go cold turkey on the lot, and learn to suck it up. And when you get old, get used to the fact you will die. Why saddle your kids with 000’s in medical bills. It’s bad enough they have to pay for the funeral.