CNN Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act
Whenever I think the GOP is done harming themselves, they go an do it again. Apparently this judge argues that since the tax penalty is now $0, the individual mandate is now unconstitutional. And since the mandate is key to ACA, the whole law is now in question.
One has to remember that overall:
Whenever I think the GOP is done harming themselves, they go an do it again. Apparently this judge argues that since the tax penalty is now $0, the individual mandate is now unconstitutional. And since the mandate is key to ACA, the whole law is now in question.
One has to remember that overall:
- ACA is more popular than unpopular
- The GOP has no better solution
- Everyone may experience a severe physical or mental illness
- Everyone should be paying for high quality insurance that will cover those possible expenses
- Letting citizens buy bargain bare bones insurance, or worse no insurance, just transfers those costs to the rest of us.
It will be interesting to see where this leads and what the consequences will be in 2020...
92 comments:
This is an interesting thought...
VOX The Texas ruling against Obamacare is a boon to Medicare-for-all
The Republican strategy to pass Medicare-for-all continues.
And the FOX Coverage even seems rational and lucid.
It must have come from their news wing and not their propaganda wing.
Of course Trump blasts out his foolishness...
"Wow, but not surprisingly, ObamaCare was just ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a highly respected judge in Texas. Great news for America!"
Somehow implying the ACA was always unconstitutional, even though it has been judged constitutional in various challenges.
I don't get Fox News. A while back I cut my cable and the service I use instead doesn't carry Fox, something I actually regret. I used to be able to keep up with what Fox is saying by following them on twitter, but Fox has gone silent lately. What I take that to mean, along from the coverage I have seen, is that at the moment Fox is re-examining it's options, specifically whether they can continue to wholeheartedly back Trump.
As for last night's decision, as risible as it surely is, I have no confidence that this Supreme court will reject it.
--Hiram
The penalty was a tax and unconstitutional on its face. SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that it was a penalty, saving it. Since the Democrats forgot to write "severability" into the ACA, the whole thing collapses.
Oh, and the ACA is popular but Obamacare is not. So much for that propagandizing.
Only question will be, once this is struck down as it should be, will Democrats cooperate and pass a Republican alternative, or double down on failure?
If there were no ProLife hypocrites in the Republican Party, they’d have no members at all. There is no Republican alternative that ensures that people receive the medical care they need.
Moose
And there is no Democrat alternative that doesn't take from some to give to others. And I'm guessing you know ZERO actual Republicans.
Obamacare is the Republican alternative. That's why Republicans have been unable to come up with a meaningful alternative. Any plan that they do propose is largely the same as Obamacare with all the downsides they complain about. Single payer, the real Democratic program, has a different set of downsides. Everybody agrees what government health care should do, they just can't agree on how to do it.
As I recall, CJ Roberts held that it was a tax and therefore constitutional. Republicans repealed the penalty, because they didn't have the votes to repeal the entire bill. They are now claiming it was their legislative intent to do what they didn't have the votes to do, which is a self contradicting argument.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Modern medicine is expensive since we can do so much now as compared to 1950. Back then if you were diagnosed with heart disease, cancer, arthitis, etc you just suffered and/or died...
Now we have treatments and/or new parts for almost everything. I know one older woman with arthritis who has had at least 3 main joints replaced.
Now the simple reality is that many people do not make enough money to pay for their insurance or treatment. So there is no doubt that either:
- wealthier people will pay more of the bill like they do for education, defense, etc
- more people will suffer and die early than they would if they receive good healthcare
So if your saving some money is worth other people unnecessarily suffering and dying... Please go ahead...
Sorry. False choice. We didn't have people "dying in the streets" before Obamacare and we don't have that now. If our society cannot afford to give every citizen every imaginable life-extending care, then there must be a way to ration it, as we do everything else, by those willing to pay for it. We shouldn't be demanding everybody carry Cadillac insurance that they cannot afford. Get rid of Obamacare's mandates and more people could be insured.
And before you blame the judge, almost every large bill has "severability" written into it so that if one part is found unconstitutional, the rest stands. Silly Democrats said this was a "complete package" so didn't write that in.
Of course they did not die in the streets. They likely died in their homes due to a lack of healthcare, medicine, etc.
It is funny that you want to give people school vouchers and yet you do not want to ensure everyone has health insurance to cover that bypass surgery, chemo, etc.
And worse yet that you are fine with folks free riding on our system.
As for rationing, I guess we can go back rationing based on luck / wealth.
Folks like me from good families and having a good career will get all the best care I can afford... Which is a lot.
Where as those unlucky folks can beg for some care at the free clinic...
I wonder if they prefer a school voucher or diabetes medication?
Or possibly surviving pregnancy.
This is an Fact sheet about Un-Insured in America
Here is why being uninsured can be deadly.
I was looking at the G2A metrics and guess what was number 5 for most looked at recently...
Sean's Ideas for Improving Healthcare / Health Insurance
What timing...
will Democrats cooperate and pass a Republican alternative, or double down on failure?
There is no Republican alternative to Obamacare. If there had been, Republicans would have proposed it during the last two years when they controlled all three branches of government.
--Hiram
Well technically we should be able to leave this to the state level politics. (ie care of people)
I mean states like MN seemed to be doing okay with the topic prior to ACA.
Unfortunately their were a lot of states who were too poor or did not have the political will to act before ACA. So maybe it has to be addressed at the national level?
The need for health care doesn't go away when one crosses state lines. And people in Congress are just as elected as people in state legislatures. Of the thousands of elected officials in America only two did not receive a plurality of the vote.
--Hiram
Here is an interesting piece from VOX of all places.
The problem with the Republican approach to health care, and with Obamacare which embraced it, is complexity. It provides for 50 state markets, 50 approaches to health care, which is a mess in a variety of different ways. For one thing, it assumes all the states are the same, with equally able to create a functioning health care system. This is not true. Many state governments are tiny, essentially mom and pop operations, totally unable to deal with complex economic issues. They are states in which hardly anyone lives which means it is unprofitable for health care companies to do business in those states because they can't generate the quantity of business insurance companies need to properly assess risk.
Republicans address this problem, but not really. They want you to be able to buy health insurance across state lines which is a way of nationalizing health care with the attendant benefits of nationalized health care.
--Hiram
However isn't scalability the challenge no matter how you do it?
Scalability, in which direction? Towards one-size-fits-all, or towards a competitive free market?
Both.
However isn't scalability the challenge no matter how you do it?
Scalability has it's issues, but the economies of scale are tremendous.
The problem with competition in health care insurance is that there are too few competitors and always with the threat that there are no competitors at all. Health insurance is a terribly difficult business, and not very many companies want to get into it. Furthermore, in small states where the risk pools are too small to manage effectively, hardly anyone wants to get into it. National insurance with it's large risk pools make the business more attractive to corporations thinking about getting into it.
--Hiran
One thing Medicare did right was to nationalize the standards for Medicare supplemental insurance, so everybody could make an equivalent offering. One thing Medicare did wrong was to make supplemental insurance necessary.
However if folks like yourself want bare bones coverage for those who have not saved and can not pay more...
Then one has to have multiple levels and costs.
For example, you want people to be free to:
1. not buy insurance / pay cash when issue arises
2. buy low cost low benefit plans, pay cash when needed
3. buy high cost, no cash needed plans
Why should our welfare for old people plans be totally paid for by the tax payers and not the recipient?
You talk like "multiple levels and costs" are a BAD thing. Does everybody want/need/afford a Lexus? Should the top 10% of earners be prohibited by law from buying the Toyota Camry or, better yet, a used Yugo?
What of freedom and a free market?
Some people can't even afford a cheap car.
Everyone needs healthcare.
Moose
Flawed analogy, as you are using it. Everyone does not NEED a car, it is possible to live without one. Most people in NYC don't even want one. Most people don't need health insurance, and many do not want it. They may need health CARE, on occasion, but there are ways that is available at no or low cost. Unless government says you cannot have it. Wouldn't it be better if that were the choice of every individual and a willing provider?
Jerry,
You are the one questioning why supplemental (ie Lexus) coverage is needed?
You are so amusing...
"there are ways that is available at no or low cost"
So if someone develops heart disease, cancer, mental illness, diabetes, or any of the very normal conditions... What is the low cost or free method of treating this?
I mean there was the one "advantage" of people not having insurance... They skip colonoscopies, mammograms, regular doctor's visits, etc to save money, therefore they do not find out about their condition in time to treat it... Maybe their dying quick did save them and us some money. :-)
Supplemental coverage is needed only because Medicare doesn't pay near enough to treat you-- it's price controls, and that means quality and availability go DOWN. There is no magic to "giving" people insurance if they cannot find a willing provider to provide the service. And again, having insurance doesn't mean you get health CARE. If you can pay for it yourself, or get some form of charity, or some form of government assistance like Medicaid, you get it. It may not be Cadillac care, but it is what those giving it to you are willing to give. You get what YOU (or some angel) pays for, nothing more. What magic are you thinking alters this fundamental law of economics?
Jerry,
I think you are missing the concept of bare bones for the needy...
Most people I know who are on Medicare seem quite happy with it and find no problem getting care. And I have to believe they are happier than if they had to beg or go bankrupt for that new knee.
And of course you being the "voucher guy"... Where people will find less expensive ways to meet the "amount paid" can not really be saying that one has to pay more to get more... Really???
The immorality of suggesting that people ought to beg to receive the healthcare they need is beyond revolting.
In the wealthiest nation in the history of history, no less.
Merry Christmas, I suppose...or perhaps Bah! Humbug!
Moose
Moose, I looked it up, and there are at least 20 countries in Africa where the people need health care. Get out your wallet, because somebody has to pay for it and they can not.
As for immoral, how about those who demand that I pay for something they want?
"As for immoral, how about those who demand that I pay for something they want?"
I know, right? Like Trump's endless golf trips, or a wall.
Besides all that, what are you talking about? Healthcare is a necessity.
"...there are at least 20 countries in Africa where the people need health care."
So what you're saying is that in the wealthiest nation ever, there are portions of it that are little better off, healthcare-wise, than Africa.
Not sure that's a place I'd want to hang my hat. Of course, it's not beyond Republicans to hang their hats on the most immoral hooks they can find.
Moose
I also notice that you didn't bother to correct me, so one has to assume that it is indeed correct that you think it just fine for people to have to beg for healthcare.
"Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
If you try to tell me again that that's an individual mandate, then I'll show you that there are approximately 228 Million American Christians that fall under this individual mandate, and they have failed.
Moose
And if you pull that "holier than thou" crap again, I will question YOUR morality. The Bible does not say "ask government to take from one and give to another." It says YOU do it, personally, and you do what you can, not what you cannot. Do your really expect some poor fellow who cannot afford his own health care to pay for yours? It's not only immoral, it's impossible.
Health care is a necessity, yes, just like food and clothing and shelter. Our generous government provides those things to poor people on our behalf, and is woefully inefficient at it. There is no "right" to any of these things, including health care, and certainly not to health insurance.
Face it, Ocare is and always was unconstitutional and counterproductive of its own stated aims. If there was a simple alternative that included "if you like your Obamacare plan you can keep your Obamacare plan" and turned PEC back to the states' high risk pools, we definitely should do that. But of course Republicans would be demonized until demons were ashamed of being seen with them, so common sense will be left to rot.
'The Bible does not say "ask government to take from one and give to another."'
Okay. Try again to understand my point, because you just proved it.
"It says YOU do it, personally, and you do what you can, not what you cannot."
Yes...COLLECTIVELY, we can do more than any individual or small group of individuals can. Also, those who believe in the Bible have utterly failed to do what they are asked to do, so we will COLLECTIVELY find a better way, with or without you.
Since it is the individual's responsibility, what penalty should there be for failing to meet it? It can't simply be eternal damnation, because that won't solve the problem of people begging for what little scraps our society gives them. Perhaps a tax on all Bible-based churches for as long as there are those in our country whose needs are not met....call it a mandatory tithe for the good of God's people.
Moose
Ah, yes, the collective. You will be assimilated. Really, you model your morality after the Borg?
You keep overlooking the great amount of good that can be done by individuals freely giving to charity, or freely joining together to do charity. Always with the Left you want to FORCE your morality down everybody's throat. Why is that?
There is no way else to do the things that aren’t being done by those individuals you think will do everything but have NEVER stepped up to the plate. The family, after all, is a collective. How well do you think a family works when every individual makes their own decisions? A church is a collective. Therefore, churches are unable to serve the poor, because they are apparently the Borg. Your morality of the individual will lead to ruin.
Moose
I keep envisioning Jerry saying this… :-)
Even though I know he is more charitable than my favorite character...
"There is no way else to do the things that aren’t being done by those individuals you think will do everything but have NEVER stepped up to the plate."
I am not ever sure what you mean to say about "/those/ people" but I do know that it is outrageously condescending. Yours is the typical liberal morality, where everybody below your economic station is a worthless layabout incapable of handling themselves so, because of your superior morality, compassion and intelligence, you demand that GOVERNMENT force all those above your economic station to pay for your acts of caring. There is no allowance for personal freedom or personal responsibility, And it is a grievous offense to human nature and human dignity.
Scrooge's big mistake was in not recognizing how ineffective government's actions – prisons and poorhouses – were. Thank goodness his moral decisions, later corrected, or his own rather than dictated by a godless liberal government.
“And it is a grievous offense to human nature and human dignity.”
Using our collective power to help people who for whatever reason are unable to help themselves is quite the opposite of What you say it is. You, however, have said that people should beg for healthcare When they need it. Your talk of human dignity is bunch of hot air.
"Using our collective power..."
Do you even read what you write? VOLUNTARY cooperation to aid those who need (often temporary) help is great; you should try it. Using [government] force to take from some to give to others marks you as a thief-- a Robbin' Hood.
You’ll notice that I’ve never suggested that ONLY the government (remember, if all collectives are bad, we cannot have government. i.e. we’d have Anarchy), so it is your own bias to which you are responding.
Furthermore, as I have stated multiple times now, if individuals were taking care of others’ needs, we would have very little poverty in this country. So...the fault lies in the failure of the individual. i.e. Your philosophy has already proven to be a failure.
Moose
LOL! Literally!
If government, over the last 50 years and trillions of dollars spent, has not eliminated poverty from this country (indeed it is higher now than it was then), then blaming individuals for not doing enough can only be an observation from a delusional state.
I have never suggested we have no government at all, but that government should do only those things which states, local governments, private organizations and individuals cannot do better, especially in their own interests. Healthcare, in particular, is something that every individual should be free to find and use as they see fit. Having some all-powerful government entity tell you exactly what healthcare you can have and what you must pay for it, ought to frighten any sane individual.
Jerry,
As I constantly remind you...
American society as a whole enables you, me and other individuals to earn our wealth...
American society also gets to determine how much we get to keep...
That is the benefit and detriment of living in a great society like ours !!!
"Healthcare, in particular, is something that every individual should be free to find and use as they see fit."
Agreed. And there are MANY MANY people who would like to do so but are barred from it.
Moose
It is interesting that Jerry fears "government rationing"
and yet he seems fine with "luck" rationing... :-)
OH, you mean like "if you like your plan you can keep your plan"?
And "everybody will be covered"? Those who lost their plan or doctor because of Ocare were just unlucky?
At least they could get a new plan... Unlike the unlucky and or lazy poor folk who could not afford any quality plan before ACA... Now they can....
Though I agree it is a bummer that the successful have to pay for it...
"In the past, gaps in the public insurance system and lack of access to affordable private coverage left millions without health insurance. Beginning in 2014, the ACA expanded coverage to millions of previously uninsured people through the expansion of Medicaid and the establishment of Health Insurance Marketplaces. Data show substantial gains in public and private insurance coverage and historic decreases in the number of uninsured people under the ACA, with nearly 20 million gaining coverage. However, for the first time since the implementation of the ACA, the number of uninsured increased by more than half a million in 2017."
You do realize, do you not, that almost as many millions lost coverage as gained it, and that the vast majority of the newly covered did so through Medicaid expansion (into higher income levels)? Of the 48 million previously "uninsured," fewer than (I think) 9 million became insured thanks to "universal coverage." How many millions chose to pay the penalty rather than buy something they didn't want, couldn't afford and couldn't use?
I'll say it again: if you wanted a better health insurance system, the ACA is the WRONG solution. If you wanted a better health CARE system, the ACA is athe wrong approach. Let it die and be forgotten.
It may be bad... But it is better than anything the Conservatives have proposed.
Or do you have a better idea of where and how the unlucky and/or lazy poor folks will get preventative care, pre-natal care, on going care for chronic conditions and high cost care for acute conditions?
Now please remember that "U.S. health care spending increased 3.9 percent to reach $3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person in 2017."
Which is pretty darn expensive compared to the countries whose systems you disagree with.
Here is an interesting discussion of the cost and quality issues.
We let them suffer and die, because we’re Christians.
Moose
Maybe making them beg at the altar is a new recruitment tool...
"It may be bad... But it is better than anything the Conservatives have proposed."
It IS bad, very bad, and we have the positive experiential proof of it. So really, have you seen every conservative proposal? Isn't it nigh onto impossible that every one of them is worse? Shouldn't one or a combination of them at least be tried? Really, if you said out to /destroy/ the American health care system, could you have done it better than the "ACA"?
Here are some folks who disagree with you.
AARP Urges Federal Court
AMA, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Urge Federal Court
John, does it shock you that Jerry doesn’t care about the opinions of the experts in this field. It’s the stock and trade of Republicanism, as also evidenced by their inability to pay attention to the climate scientists.
Moose
Not really. :-)
LOL! We should not follow the Constitution because some folks with a vested interest, a radical bias, and a phantasmagorical fantasy of "what would be" don't like it? How about this? The court strikes down the ACA in its entirety, and Congress quickly comes up with a new plan (it shouldn't be difficult logically, maybe politically) with one particular provision, "if you like your plan you can keep your plan." Problem solved and these Chicken Littles will continue to wail and moan. Watch.
The good news is that the ruling by a partisan policy making Judge will likely not stand.
CNBC Coverage
The challenge as always with your proposal by the way.
Pre-ACA, the biggest problem was that many could / would not afford the premiums that companies wanted to charge them... Either they were:
- too financially poor to pay normal premiums
- happy being uninsured and using emergency room
- there premiums were too high due to pre-existing conditions or age...
- or no one would insure them
Unfortunately your plan only helps folks who have a:
- a good income
- are healthy
- are young
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
Well, the clear language of the Constitution says the ACA is unconstitutional. Any other ruling will be judicial activism.
And you are dead wrong about the pre-ACA world. There were lots of low-cost insurance programs out there, and would have been more except for government regulations. HSAs were limited by law, for instance. And MinnesotaCare was greatly superior to MNSURE for the poor folks, while Minnesota's High Risk Pool was better for those with PEC. And notice, after Obamacare, Emergency Room visits went UP?
Once again I find you defending the indefensible. It matters little, at least too me, HOW this miscegenation gets the ignominious demise it richly deserves.
Why specifically do you believe ACA is unconstitutional?
As noted, the majority of experts apparently disagree with you.
And please remember HSAs and bargain plans only work well for folks who have:
- a good income
- are healthy
- are young
As for were MN plans better? That may be possible since MN is a very Liberal and Wealthy state. Unfortunately for many residents of other states, they were not so well taken care of pre-ACA.
It looks like even MN Pools were not that great
The ACA was sold as a "balanced package" whose costs were covered by the "penalty" on those who didn't participate. Yet when they went to SCOTUS, they said it was a TAX, and permissible because Congress had the power to tax. It should have been stricken down because constitutionally taxes must originate in the HOuse, and the ACA originated in the Senate.
Then last year, the tax was set to zero so the program no longer met the legal, Congressional requirement for fiscal balance. Because of that and the lack of "severability" language, the whole ACA must be struck down, just as the judge has ruled. The ACA does not meet Congressional intent when passed.
Technically there is still a mandat and tax... :-)
They haven’t removed the tax, it’s just that the amount of the tax is zero. It’s still there.
Moose
Really? A distinction without a difference will stop whatever common sense constitutional remedy will free us from this terrible law? Why would you want that?
Because we do not see it as a terrible law... duh... :-)
If the tax is in the law and it’s set at zero, is it in the law?
Moose
Yes, it is in the law. If the penalty for not having insurance is zero, is there a penalty? If there is NOT a penalty, then does the law provide universal coverage?
It was never meant to provide universal coverage... It was to encourage folks to not free load... By pressuring them and helping them to pay for quality health insurance.
I never have understood your desire to reward folks for not saving for a rainy day. Oh well...
Funny. We were told that everyone would be covered, that our care would improve, and we would all save $2500 per family. And that we could keep our plan. So, we are going to change nothing except have lower costs, better quality and more availability. If someone gave you that as a project specification, would you dive straight in?
If you won't condemn the ACA for under-delivery, how about for over-promising?
Nope, I am fine with any law that forces people to keep themselves well insured.
Because catastrophic illness and expenses can hit anyone...
You want to force people to buy something they do not need, cannot afford and do not want. What a humanitarian! /sarc
And "catastrophic insurance" is not available, thanks to Obamacare.
Since no one has a clear crystal ball... No one knows "what they do not need"...
So yes mandating insurance coverage by the individual to protect us from having to pay their bills is a very logical thing.
The same reason we make drivers carry liability insurance...
Or are you saying we should let people who think they will not have an accident drive without insurance?
There you go with that same fatally flawed analogy. We "require" drivers to carry liability insurance because they might accidentally harm US. Yet we all have "uninsured motorist coverage" as well. So...
If someone does not have insurance and cannot pay for /their/ health care, they get charity or go bankrupt or make a deal with the hospital (like 10 cents on the dollar, I've seen it). It is their responsibility one way or another. They are NOT automatically my financial responsibility! The only thing we need "protection" from is this crazy liberal notion that the taxpayers are automatically responsible for every liberal's compassion fantasy.
There is no compassion fantasy here...
I fully expect everyone to pay for their insurance regularly and early on a high quality policy...
Therefore we citizens do not have to cover their bad debts and related expenses...
Or do you think the banks, hospitals, etc do not spread the cost to us other customers?
If so that is so cute and naïve. :-)
If you had said you expect everybody to pay for the health care they receive, by insurance, out of pocket, through charity, or by bankruptcy/bad debt, I could agree with you. It is a personal responsibility and cannot be sloughed off on the taxpayers in general. Likewise, we must all pay our bills, inflated as they are by the bad debts of others. Government need not be involved at all in the process.
As soon as you say the terms:
- bankruptcy
- courts
- noncollectable debt
- charity
- write offs, deductions, etc
The government and all of us tax payers / patients are involved and paying.
Fine. But it is never our responsibility. We might /choose/ to be charitable, but we are not required to do so. Or shouldn't be.
Continue with your self denial...
responsibility
1 : the quality or state of being responsible: such as
a : moral, legal, or mental accountability
b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN
has neglected his responsibilities
If you are unwilling to force people to be responsible for their own obligations through mandatory insurance premiums... You will certainly be held partially responsible for their not doing so...
Whether it be to to help:
- fund the courts and officers of the courts
- fund hospitals, banks, etc who transfer some of their noncollectible debt to other customers
- pay additional taxes to make up for write offs, charitable deductions of others, etc
The biggest problem with your solution is that it hides all those costs, so we can do nothing to push them back to the correct party or reduce them. They are just baked into the overhead of our bills.
I am still not understanding how the lack of responsibility on your part places the burden of your responsibility on me. What happened to me being responsible for me and you being responsible for you? we have tried this "mandatory insurance" idea and many millions of people either will not or cannot comply. I fail to see how adding government force to what should be a free market decision helps anybody. What would happen if the young and healthy were allowed to carry catastrophic-only (inexpensive) insurance? Would more of them voluntarily be insured?
How about we look out for the needs of our neighbors, as Christians in a ‘Christian Country’ must do?
Moose
Let's try this again...
Responsibility: the quality or state of being responsible: such as moral, legal, or mental accountability.
Now we know that the patient who can not pay their bills will not pay those medical bills.
We know that they will be transferred to other customers and tax payers... Including yourself...
And you will be responsible to pay premiums, bills, taxes, etc which include the costs not paid by that patient.
Deny this if you wish... But you will be responsible for paying them and you will. :-)
Moose,
Unfortunately your vision of Christian is usually a bit too:
Promoting Dependency for Me...
How do you want to hold people responsible for making good life choices, living healthy, paying their way, avoiding being on the dole, etc?
"Now we know that the patient who can not pay their bills will not pay those medical bills." Well, duh.
My point is that said patient is still RESPONSIBLE for those bills. Now whether I choose to argue with MY hospital bill because of this "freeloader surcharge" is my business. But if government tells me that I am responsible for insuring that freeloader, in advance, That is a horse of a different color... leaving something behind.
Once the hospital and/or bank gives up trying to collect or forgives the debt.
The patient is no longer legally responsible...
Or if the person dies after ringing up a huge debt during end of life care...
At that time those costs are passed on to all of us.
How or why do you choose to deny this simple reality?
And by the way, you will pay the "unlucky / free loader surcharge" whether you want to or not... Because once they are buried in your healthcare bill or tax statement...
They have become your legal responsibility...
Differentiate, please, between legal and moral responsibility. And I would make an additional distinction between legally imposed as a matter of contract, and legally imposed as a matter of Congressional overreach. The patient that dies still has the contractual responsibility, but it passes to his/her estate. They also have the moral responsibility, which never ends. How or even if the bill actually gets paid is just a matter of bookkeeping.
I have the fiscal responsibility to pay for my care, however calculated. No part of it is someone else's moral responsibility transferred to me. And no part of someone else's contractual responsibility should be transferred to me by government decree.
Keep in mind we're talking about the Obama administration "taking over" 1/6 of the US economy and running it like a piece-work factory. (That is, poorly.) Please let it be struck down so "we" can start over.
Post a Comment