[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Prudence

I dont like the supreme courts decission.. I think it has found a loop hole in what apears to me a movement almost toward dictatorship.

Then the bar for dictatorship has been lowered quite a bit.

Im sure the taxation point was argured quite well on the floor of the supreme court and it won out. Ok .. so we can be taxed.. got it.. how about if at the end of the year.. the medical community has to turn over its billing to the federal govenment(see where this is still going) so that each who files income tax is matched up to that list to see if they have any outstanding medical bills .. if they do then tax them..

Actually, that's not how it works. The individual mandate is an elegant solution to the free rider problem. This might take a bit to explain so bear with me. Imagine you could avoid carrying insurance coverage until you actually *needed* insurance coverage? Imagine that you then only buy insurance coverage when you're sick and drop it when you're well. If that were the case, then the entire model of insurance breaks down because it only works because young workers (who use their health insurance less often) pay in more than they take out and older workers (who use it more often) take out more than they put in. Any person who 'opts-out' of insurance coverage when they are healthy and takes it up when they are ill is a free rider (meaning they are gaining the benefit without the attendant cost). ALL the individual mandate does--ALL IT DOES--is dictate that you carry health insurance and if you choose *not* to you are assessed a tax penalty (meaning that there's a tax break you do *not* get).

..Either way the federal govenment is "dictating" something as individual as your privite health care issues.

No, they are not.

. be it from the consumer or the provider.. They want that informantion. If this is truly upheld.. you will find that there will be limits then placed on procedures and recovery times for indivuals, services will be cut,

Not only is this not the case but we have that already, it's called--wait for it--health insurance. Why is it the very essence of dictatorship if there are limits placed on procedures and recovery times if it is the government (which isn't happening under this law by the way) but it is the very essence of freedom if Aetna or Kaiser or Blue Cross does the very same thing? Please don't say "you can always buy health insurance on the private market". Ask someone with rheumatoid arthritis or MS or breast cancer how the tender mercies of the private insurance market has been toward them.

it will eventually be that you will have to go through a governmental process to see if your condition is even worth addressing by the health care community. They will be dictating what meds can be dispensed .. at what cost and rate..

Again, we have that already it's called health insurance and it is done NOT out of some calculus of medical necessity but out of profit. Aetna, United Healthcare, Blue Cross are not systems for providing health care, they are systems for *denying* medical claims. The idea is for Aetna to pay as few claims and as little money on those claims as the law will allow. If Aetna could take what my employer pays for my health insurance and deny every single claim legally, they would absolutely do so.

because they can only tax a certian precentage Heath care is not a one size fits all. I do understand that privite insurance will still exsit.. until it doesnt.

Private insurance will be with us for the foreseeable future.

The most basic of human instint is survival..What would you do for a person who is standing over you holding the very pill that would enable you to take your next breath. Its a wolf in sheeps clothing yall.

Ummm, when I had my appendix out I went into the hospital on Tuesday morning, they took my appendix out late Tuesday/early Wednesday (I was in the recovery room around 2:30 in the morning or so) and I was *home* Wednesday afternoon. I spent more time in the hospital waiting to get into surgery than I spent in the hospital *after* surgery. When I told my boss that Thursday I would be in on Monday she told me that wasn't happening because I'd just had a serious surgery. I said "that's not possible, if it were major surgery I'd still be in the hospital". My boss' husband was a doctor and he called me and let me know that the reason I was home was my *insurance* company demanded that I be sent home not because it was medically advisable. So, again, I return to the question: why is it a Bad Thing if the government has any cost controls on health care but it is the very essence of Freedom and Love of Mother for my insurance provider to send me home 12 hours after my appendix ruptured on the operating table?

Cheers
Aj