health care
in [Golf]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 16 Feb 2010 21:15 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:35:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: >>Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who can >>require what they want for that support. >> >>For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, >>we pay. > > >The reason that they do it is because it's the law. > >I have no idea what gives the government the right to order private >businesses to provide services for free. The government can take my money and my labor. That's the nature of governments. But in this case, the government pays money to community hospitals, and demands some control for that money. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 16 Feb 2010 21:20 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:39:54 -0500, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, >> we pay. > >What happens when we, the community, cannot afford to pay for their >treatment? In places that can't afford that, people are untreated. But not treating those who can't afford it is a real option in the United States. Very few of us can afford treatment we might want - that's why we buy insurance, to share the cost with others. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Jack Hollis on 16 Feb 2010 21:25 On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:15:57 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:35:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >wrote: > >>>Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who can >>>require what they want for that support. >>> >>>For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, >>>we pay. >> >> >>The reason that they do it is because it's the law. >> >>I have no idea what gives the government the right to order private >>businesses to provide services for free. > >The government can take my money and my labor. That's the nature of >governments. > >But in this case, the government pays money to community hospitals, >and demands some control for that money. The government doesn't reimburse the hospitals for the services. The hospital has to absorb the cost. This is what is known as an unfunded mandate. The Feds always pass unfunded mandates to the states, but that government to government. The law requiring hospitals to deliver services is, in many cases, a government mandate on a private business. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to the consumer who has insurance. It's a stealth tax.
From: William Clark on 16 Feb 2010 21:58 In article <gekmn5poggg6so8642q5o5prk91a1n9nc3(a)4ax.com>, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:15:57 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > wrote: > > >On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:35:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > >wrote: > > > >>>Community hospitals get financial support from towns & cities, who can > >>>require what they want for that support. > >>> > >>>For whatever reason they treat those who can't afford their treatment, > >>>we pay. > >> > >> > >>The reason that they do it is because it's the law. > >> > >>I have no idea what gives the government the right to order private > >>businesses to provide services for free. > > > >The government can take my money and my labor. That's the nature of > >governments. > > > >But in this case, the government pays money to community hospitals, > >and demands some control for that money. > > The government doesn't reimburse the hospitals for the services. The > hospital has to absorb the cost. This is what is known as an unfunded > mandate. The Feds always pass unfunded mandates to the states, but > that government to government. The law requiring hospitals to deliver > services is, in many cases, a government mandate on a private > business. Ultimately, the cost is passed on to the consumer who has > insurance. It's a stealth tax. BS, Jack, as per usual. The hospitals don't "absorb the cost", they recoup it by overcharging patients who do have insurance. In other words, they are allowed to tax you and me. Gosh, sounds like a public option, without the honesty or accountability.
From: Carbon on 17 Feb 2010 00:57
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:38:52 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 16-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> It's a nice fantasy, appealing in its brainless simplicity: >>>> Liberals blow money and Conservatives do not. >>> >>> You're the simple one, as those are your words. I've stated many >>> times and in great detail how to lower healthcare costs. What you >>> call reform will not do it. It goes against the basic laws of >>> economics. >> >> Back here on planet earth, what I call reform is what is otherwise >> known as universal healthcare. Everywhere it has been implemented (in >> the first world at least) it has been much less expensive per capita >> than US healthcare and has also produced better results in the form >> of average life expectancy > > But you can't say what their systems would be if they had not gone > down the economy stifling path of UHS now can you? Can you tell me > that Britain's NHS won't implode under the weight of bommer aging? It > is already showing stress. Life expectancy does not relate exclusively > to healthcare, if fact, after the 1st few fragile years of life, it is > almost divorced from it. Economy stifling? Bill, what the hell are you talking about? The US system is the most expensive in the world by far. Countries with rational healthcare systems have a lot less to worry about than the US does. |