Tomorrow is the 4th, so let's ask an inflammatory question...

[JohnR! 5,495]

As I said, PPACA isn't a healthcare bill, it's a nail in the coffin of the idea of liberty from corporate control. Liberals see a few things they like, so they accept the bill as is. Although I will say there are many true liberals fighting for repeal as well. - This is a corporate bill. It's a bill that makes big insurance even bigger, corporate health care even wealthier, and pharma more in control. It's the EXACT type of ####### that the left goes after the Koch brothers on and big oil. However since "pre-existing conditions" can get a health plan now, it's all OK somehow. The hypocrisy is amazing.

I welcome the bill because I am fiscally conservative and I do not like the idea that I have to pay for the healthcare of all those who choose not to do it themselves.

I would be for a total repeal of any HCR if hospitals were not mandated by law to care for those who can't pay,

If I were the only and sole responsible for the cost of my healthcare I would welcome either formula. Unfortunately we do not have the option to deny care for those who choose not to take care of their medical bills. We already are on the hands of the big insurance companies. Chances are, if you are employed, that you must take your employer's minimum coverage unless you can provide evidence you are a beneficiary in your spouse's plan.

[웃 910]

How many people do you think will read the declaration of independence tomorrow to their family and friends?

Are you going to read it to your friends and family tomorrow?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If we could just round up all the RWN's and give them an option to go through re-education camps, be forced into hard labor to pay for all the lazy libs who like their big screen tv's, or be sent to a remote island in the Pacific, this country would be perfect.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1341346291[/url]' post='5502135']

If we could just round up all the RWN's and give them an option to go through re-education camps, be forced into hard labor to pay for all the lazy libs who like their big screen tv's, or be sent to a remote island in the Pacific, this country would be perfect.

Touché !

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This touchy-feely warm hugs all around stuff makes me sick. Sometimes you have to be the big bad wolf, knock down a few poorly built structures, and slaughter some piggies.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If we could just round up all the RWN's and give them an option to go through re-education camps, be forced into hard labor to pay for all the lazy libs who like their big screen tv's, or be sent to a remote island in the Pacific, this country would be perfect.

Not until you take away all the guns and the AM radios.

[X Factor 1,112]

This touchy-feely warm hugs all around stuff makes me sick. Sometimes you have to be the big bad wolf, knock down a few poorly built structures, and slaughter some piggies.

Unless you want to have turkey bacon

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I welcome the bill because I am fiscally conservative and I do not like the idea that I have to pay for the healthcare of all those who choose not to do it themselves.

I would be for a total repeal of any HCR if hospitals were not mandated by law to care for those who can't pay,

If I were the only and sole responsible for the cost of my healthcare I would welcome either formula. Unfortunately we do not have the option to deny care for those who choose not to take care of their medical bills. We already are on the hands of the big insurance companies. Chances are, if you are employed, that you must take your employer's minimum coverage unless you can provide evidence you are a beneficiary in your spouse's plan.

On your first point, what about the 10-20 million illegals who will still abuse the system like they've always done? - I'm fiscally responsible as well and I choose to pay for my healthcare out of pocket, on my own. Offer me a catastrophic option and I'll be happy to buy it. However health 'care' plans are so overloaded thanks to over regulation that it's no wonder many cannot afford them.

On your second point, hospitals are not mandated by law to care for those who cannot pay. It's a myth. It's a farce. They can still choose not to care for them, HOWEVER if they choose not to care for them they will not see a dime from the Feds in the way of medicare/medicaid payments.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

On your second point, hospitals are not mandated by law to care for those who cannot pay. It's a myth. It's a farce. They can still choose not to care for them, HOWEVER if they choose not to care for them they will not see a dime from the Feds in the way of medicare/medicaid payments.

(d) Enforcement

(1) Civil money penalties

(A)

A participating hospital

that negligently violates a requirement of this section is subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000 (or not more than $25,000 in the case of a hospital with less than 100 beds) for each such violation. The provisions of section 1320a–7a of this title (other than subsections (a) and (b)) shall apply to a civil money penalty under this subparagraph in the same manner as such provisions apply with respect to a penalty or proceeding under section 1320a–7a (a) of this title.

(B) Subject to subparagraph ©, any physician who is responsible for the examination, treatment, or transfer of an individual in a participating hospital, including a physician on-call for the care of such an individual, and who negligently violates a requirement of this section, including a physician who—

(i) signs a certification under subsection ©(1)(A) of this section that the medical benefits reasonably to be expected from a transfer to another facility outweigh the risks associated with the transfer, if the physician knew or should have known that the benefits did not outweigh the risks, or

(ii) misrepresents an individual’s condition or other information, including a hospital’s obligations under this section,

is subject to a civil money penalty of not more than $50,000 for each such violation and, if the violation is gross and flagrant or is repeated, to exclusion from participation in this subchapter and State health care programs. The provisions of section 1320a–7a of this title (other than the first and second sentences of subsection (a) andsubsection (b)) shall apply to a civil money penalty and exclusion under this subparagraph in the same manner as such provisions apply with respect to a penalty, exclusion, or proceeding under section 1320a–7a (a) of this title.

© If, after an initial examination, a physician determines that the individual requires the services of a physician listed by the hospital on its list of on-call physicians (required to be maintained under section 1395cc (a)(1)(I) of this title) and notifies the on-call physician and the on-call physician fails or refuses to appear within a reasonable period of time, and the physician orders the transfer of the individual because the physician determines that without the services of the on-call physician the benefits of transfer outweigh the risks of transfer, the physician authorizing the transfer shall not be subject to a penalty under subparagraph (B). However, the previous sentence shall not apply to the hospital or to the on-call physician who failed or refused to appear.

(2) Civil enforcement

(A) Personal harm

Any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital’s violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the participating hospital, obtain those damages available for personal injury under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.

(B) Financial loss to other medical facility

Any medical facility that suffers a financial loss as a direct result of a participating hospital’s violation of a requirement of this section may, in a civil action against the participating hospital, obtain those damages available for financial loss, under the law of the State in which the hospital is located, and such equitable relief as is appropriate.

© Limitations on actions

No action may be brought under this paragraph more than two years after the date of the violation with respect to which the action is brought.

42 USC § 1395DD - EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND WOMEN IN LABOR

Edited July 3, 2012 by ☼

[JohnR! 5,495]

1341356834[/url]' post='5502418']

On your second point, hospitals are not mandated by law to care for those who cannot pay. It's a myth. It's a farce. They can still choose not to care for them, HOWEVER if they choose not to care for them they will not see a dime from the Feds in the way of medicare/medicaid payments.

it is not a farse. Do a search and Google it - and I don't mean it in snide - and you'll find out that hospitals are mandated by law to treat everyone, despite ability to pay. When you choose to buy health insurance for yourself you don't have the choice not to pay for those costs which are passed on to the operating costs of the hospitals and which are then passed along to the rest of us in our ever increasing insurance premiums.

As I said, why is it no one questions the fact auto insurance is mandatory? And consider the consequences of it being made optional. Despite the difference in legislation I believe the comparison to be germane.

Happy 4th!!!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

it is not a farse. Do a search and Google it

That would be a requirement for you, to provide a cite to validate your assertion. Otherwise, you lose the argument.

[^_^ 5,021]

That would be a requirement for you, to provide a cite to validate your assertion. Otherwise, you lose the argument.

Shouldn't the individual who made the initial assertion be the one required to back it up?

Why must people spin their wheels debunking every little bit of ignorant silliness spewed by the ignorami?

[JohnR! 5,495]

That would be a requirement for you, to provide a cite to validate your assertion. Otherwise, you lose the argument.

My presumption is that the other poster is savvy enough to to a search in his/her engine of choice. So, there is no losing the argument, for there is no argument to begin with.

[kytwell 179]

As I said, why is it no one questions the fact auto insurance is mandatory?

The Amish use the roads around these parts and don't have auto insurance.

Edited July 5, 2012 by kytwell

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Shouldn't the individual who made the initial assertion be the one required to back it up?

Why must people spin their wheels debunking every little bit of ignorant silliness spewed by the ignorami?

He should have, but in this case, he was right: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/376060-tomorrow-is-the-4th-so-lets-ask-an-inflammatory-question/page__view__findpost__p__5502454