Looking like ObamaCare is going DOWNPosted By Michael Koons |
David,
just wondering about your position on the individual mandate as it relates to the Constitution and Federal Law. Prior to Obamacare, under the not for profit status of many hospitals where I live, those who show up to the ER are treated to fulfill providing a "substantial benefit" under the not for profit status.
Those who are treated are either unwilling or unable to pay and the hospital just provides the service. I am fairly sure that the hospital does not "just suck it up". I am sure in some form or another my premiums are increased to cover this cost. Why does the hospital continue to provide free service? To fulfill the requirements of their not for profit status.
Who provides the guidelines for not for profits and the rules surrounding them? The local government, state government, federal government? I am fairly certain that it is the Feds. If this is true, then all along since the inception of the not for profit model for healthcare, the paying people, under the auspices of the federal government have been subsidising those who cannot or will not pay for themselves, but they can not be denied care.
If this is true, then the Feds have been knee deep since well before Obamacare but with a twist. They only pay(and then pass the cost on to everyone else) for corrective care. They are taking our money and redistributing it to others.
If this is true than the choices of your poison may be;
1. The prior Federal Not for Profit plan whereby you and I pay for ER visits comprised typically of corrective medicine.
2. Federal Obamacare where you and I pay for more preventive medicine and less corrective care.
My personal choice is preventive. Yours may be different. Some people buy a car, never change the oil or rotate the tires, change air or oil filters or replace the plugs. Those vehicles will likely end up with a big bill. Some people get all the maintenance and pay for the little things along the way. Those vehicles typically run better, more reliably and get better fuel efficiency. Pick your poison.
I personally found a lot not to like about Obamacare, particularly expanding a system without addressing many of the shortcommings and making big problems bigger. The individual mandate though......I liked it. I would rather pay for the preventive care. I think it will save me money in the long run and those who can pay, but now just choose to ride in on my
buck, pay something.
Just a side note regarding preventive care. One of my employees is riding on his spouses plan which includes dental. In the event that you do not get your annual dental visit for a clean and inspection, they drop you. I'm sure anyone could reason why.
I did not mean to be confrontational with this post and hope it is not taken in that vein. I simply have a different viewpoint from some others.
If we rejected the not for profit status of all healthcare providors and the associated strings attached, then it would be an altogether different ballgame. A particular local healthcare facility which shields computer service, printing services, medical equipment repair and a host of other items from tax, would pay tax and be unable to compete with local businesses that provide the same services but pay tax. And where I live they DO compete with local businesses for service outside of the not for profit.
The not for profit model is unfair and a bad thing IMHO.
Michael
just wondering about your position on the individual mandate as it relates to the Constitution and Federal Law. Prior to Obamacare, under the not for profit status of many hospitals where I live, those who show up to the ER are treated to fulfill providing a "substantial benefit" under the not for profit status.
Those who are treated are either unwilling or unable to pay and the hospital just provides the service. I am fairly sure that the hospital does not "just suck it up". I am sure in some form or another my premiums are increased to cover this cost. Why does the hospital continue to provide free service? To fulfill the requirements of their not for profit status.
Who provides the guidelines for not for profits and the rules surrounding them? The local government, state government, federal government? I am fairly certain that it is the Feds. If this is true, then all along since the inception of the not for profit model for healthcare, the paying people, under the auspices of the federal government have been subsidising those who cannot or will not pay for themselves, but they can not be denied care.
If this is true, then the Feds have been knee deep since well before Obamacare but with a twist. They only pay(and then pass the cost on to everyone else) for corrective care. They are taking our money and redistributing it to others.
If this is true than the choices of your poison may be;
1. The prior Federal Not for Profit plan whereby you and I pay for ER visits comprised typically of corrective medicine.
2. Federal Obamacare where you and I pay for more preventive medicine and less corrective care.
My personal choice is preventive. Yours may be different. Some people buy a car, never change the oil or rotate the tires, change air or oil filters or replace the plugs. Those vehicles will likely end up with a big bill. Some people get all the maintenance and pay for the little things along the way. Those vehicles typically run better, more reliably and get better fuel efficiency. Pick your poison.
I personally found a lot not to like about Obamacare, particularly expanding a system without addressing many of the shortcommings and making big problems bigger. The individual mandate though......I liked it. I would rather pay for the preventive care. I think it will save me money in the long run and those who can pay, but now just choose to ride in on my
buck, pay something.
Just a side note regarding preventive care. One of my employees is riding on his spouses plan which includes dental. In the event that you do not get your annual dental visit for a clean and inspection, they drop you. I'm sure anyone could reason why.
I did not mean to be confrontational with this post and hope it is not taken in that vein. I simply have a different viewpoint from some others.
If we rejected the not for profit status of all healthcare providors and the associated strings attached, then it would be an altogether different ballgame. A particular local healthcare facility which shields computer service, printing services, medical equipment repair and a host of other items from tax, would pay tax and be unable to compete with local businesses that provide the same services but pay tax. And where I live they DO compete with local businesses for service outside of the not for profit.
The not for profit model is unfair and a bad thing IMHO.
Michael