Health Reform Takes Another Hit, This Time in Florida

Bill Lets U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.
As long as you are compelled to buy something it is still wrong.
Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NOPE

Although some tried to argue that it could be used aginst American Citizens, the PURPOSE clause made it clear that it DIDN'T apply to US Citizens.

Purpose— This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission

Later any confusion about the INTENT or PURPOSE of this law was quickly clarified when the justices said an American detained on the battlefield could be declared an enemy combatant, as long as he had an opportunity to challenge his detention, ie Habius Corpus.

And thus NO American Citizens were denied HC because of this law.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then what distinction are you making between a positive incentive and a negative incentive? In both cases, your tax burden is higher for not having health insurance. As I already pointed out, if I declined my employer-sponsored health benefit and instead negotiated its equivalent in wages, my tax burden would go up. All pre- individual mandate.

It seemed for a moment like you were trying to draw a distinction between those circumstances but now it seems you're arguing that all tax incentives, positive or negative, pushing people into buying health insurance are wrong (morally, I assume). Is that the case?

 

You beg the question a lot Arthur.

 

Please joe, were in the constitution is that right granted to the Government?

 

joe, your the one playing dumb, I didn't say that "you" don't have insurance I said if you don't have insurance, and guess what even all of the things you listed have to be treated if you go to a hospital, the law makes that very clear, and that treatment doesn't stop with your discharge.

The whole point?

(- prevent insurance companies from denying people needed healthcare)

Now just how do Insurances deny people needed health care?

It would have been far simpler to just change the law that the insurance companies must provide the care as specified by their policy and that the treatment is provided first, and any denial is secondary and the Insurance Companies must prove the coverage doesn't exist.

(- allow every citizen and legal resident access to affordable healthcare)

Affordable health care? By whose definition? We have people today who can't afford Medicare of Medicaid and that was suppose to be affordable health care for seniors, and look how badly the Federal Government screwed that up.

(- more equitable distribution of healthcare costs)

Again by whose definition? When I go to the hospital, and see people in the emergency room, arrive in BMW, with the latest in cellular communication, grills in their teeth, gold blink around their neck, Air Jordan on their feet, the latest team jacket as their colors, and they claim that they can't afford insurance, just how equitable on the distribution of the cost of healthcare do you want me to be?

My sister in law is a Nurse Practitioner, and works emergency, and those story's are rife.

(- reduce healthcare costs)

By letting the Federal Government take over? joe don't act so dumb, when has the Federal Government ever taken over anything and the cost got cheaper.

Yes, joe, quit acting so plumb dumb.

 

Oh yes you did, I suggest you go back and read your post.

So you are going to tell me that if you go to the emergency room, the hospital is going to pay for all of your medications to treat a chronic medical problem for the rest of your life?

You have no clue as to what you are talking about here mr. roam. The law only says the emergency room is required to examine and stabilze a patient before discharging them. It does not require them to provide ongoing treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act#Hospital_obligations

I have no idea what you are referencing.

They have a word for it mr. roam. It is called rescission. And insurance companies specialize rescission when people get ill and need their insurance, they have staff dedicated to no other purpose.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/claims/a/fighting_claim_denials.htm

Well guess what, that is what Obamacare does.

And just where would one find these people mr. roam who cannot afford Medicare and Medicaid? Mediare and Medicaid are free. Supplemental insurance coverages are not free. Medicare covers 80 percent of most medical coverages. Medicaid is the medical program for indigents (that is another word for poor people mr. roam).

And just how has the government screwed up Medicare and Medicaid? You mr. roam are have govenment provided healthcare. Has the government screwed up your medical coverage? Do you want to surrender your government provided healthcare coverage?

If you have not noticed mr. roam, that is a big part of this discussion. Those people are called free riders. That is why under Obamacare, they are required to pay for their healthcare insurance. Under the current system they pay nothing, under healthcare reform they what they can afford which is better than the current nothing.

You are making my case for me.

A couple of things, the federal government is not taking over healthcare. It is mandating some changes in how healthcare insurance works. It is requiring the free ridders pay up. And it regulates health insurance companies like a utility - since they are expempt from antitrust laws and operate as a oligopoly.