Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so why are you against the health care law and making everyone pay something?forcibly so, even.
Uh, I'm not?
clothing stores can refuse to sell or service any customer.What the new study suggests, though, is that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills. That amounts to as much as 8% higher premiums due to the lack of universal health care in the U.S. "So many Americans think that universal coverage is for the uninsured," says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has been a vocal advocate of health-care reform. "This is the hidden tax we all pay for our failure to insure all Americans.uh...no.
Docs do not have a say in their reimbursement rates.
If they do not comply with the insurance programs, they do not accept patients with that insurance.
But a valient effort to explain whatever it is Syphon said...but Syphon is wrong.
Read more: Do Your Premiums Help Cover the Uninsured? - TIME
thanks but try again....
are you gonna say TIME magazine is not a valid source now?
are you aware that a large percentage of the cost of clothing in a retail store is incorporated into the pricing to compensate for stolen goods?
What you are saying is not unusual.....but it has nothing to do with the insurance ciompanies....they reimburse what they reimburse.
so why are you against the health care law and making everyone pay something?
Uh, I'm not?
yo....so far had 12 closings in the Albany area.....paid 100 per.....2 people did them....one made 800 the ohter 400....each closing took about 45 minutes...an hour and 15 minutes including drive time.
GET YOUR FREAKING NYS notary pubolic license.
clothing stores can refuse to sell or service any customer.What the new study suggests, though, is that providers often pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to their insured patients. Its analysis found that families pay, on average, as much as $1,100 extra and individuals $410 extra in health-care premiums each year in order to cover the cost of treatment to uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay their bills. That amounts to as much as 8% higher premiums due to the lack of universal health care in the U.S. "So many Americans think that universal coverage is for the uninsured," says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has been a vocal advocate of health-care reform. "This is the hidden tax we all pay for our failure to insure all Americans.
Read more: Do Your Premiums Help Cover the Uninsured? - TIME
thanks but try again....
are you gonna say TIME magazine is not a valid source now?
are you aware that a large percentage of the cost of clothing in a retail store is incorporated into the pricing to compensate for stolen goods?
What you are saying is not unusual.....but it has nothing to do with the insurance ciompanies....they reimburse what they reimburse.
can a hospital refuse to treat any patient?
birth control was part of the preventative care that also included mammograms and such.so why are you against the health care law and making everyone pay something?forcibly so, even.
becuase it opens the door to what we are now seeing.
Last week it was "I want free birth control"...and the result is insurance companies are mandated to offer it.
Whats next?
Massages?
Accupuncture?
Face lifts? (I cant get a job becuase I look old...a face lift will open doors for me)...
Like I said...it is opening some very ugly doors.
what else beside the mandate is so terrible?clothing stores can refuse to sell or service any customer.are you aware that a large percentage of the cost of clothing in a retail store is incorporated into the pricing to compensate for stolen goods?
What you are saying is not unusual.....but it has nothing to do with the insurance ciompanies....they reimburse what they reimburse.
can a hospital refuse to treat any patient?
????
Has noithing to do with it.
Look...we dont see eye to eye...sorry Bud......I dont like the healthcare law and I fear that mandate.
It has already opened the door to another mandate (contraception).
Heck...when will it end?
birth control was part of the preventative care that also included mammograms and such.so why are you against the health care law and making everyone pay something?
becuase it opens the door to what we are now seeing.
Last week it was "I want free birth control"...and the result is insurance companies are mandated to offer it.
Whats next?
Massages?
Accupuncture?
Face lifts? (I cant get a job becuase I look old...a face lift will open doors for me)...
Like I said...it is opening some very ugly doors.
New "Preventive Services" Coverage Mandate - Requirements Are Clarified
so are you against providing mammograms at not additional cost? what about immunizations? those are terrible and controversial as well.
apparently $49B to you is only a small fractionmany tax payers arent ok with this system. hence the need to make everyone pay something. the reason rates keep going up is due to unpaid medical bill which then get spread across the premiums of those who actually pay.
you would think the right would support making people pay the services they use...
No that is not so. Unpaid bills are only a small part of health costs.
Up to $49 billion unpaid by uninsured for hospitalizations - USATODAY.com
what else beside the mandate is so terrible?clothing stores can refuse to sell or service any customer.
can a hospital refuse to treat any patient?
????
Has noithing to do with it.
Look...we dont see eye to eye...sorry Bud......I dont like the healthcare law and I fear that mandate.
It has already opened the door to another mandate (contraception).
Heck...when will it end?
your missing the point that no one is being forced to take contraception. it is simply being made available to any one who chooses to use it as not additional costs. as in its included in the cost of your premium. the same way immunizations and mammograms are going to be included.
That's what Medicaid was designed for.OK, Ypou asked a question and I answered it.
Now you want to change the debate.
There are community clinics that treat chronic illness.
Now you'll ask about meds. Dems will not be satisfied until everything remotely "medical" is "free."
I didn't change the debate. I asked about care. You're the one that wanted to pretend emergency care is the beginning and end of treatment. Community clinics are not an answer for chronic illness. They treat colds and sprained ankles, but they don't have the resources to provide treatment for diabetes and cancer. That's today, much less in a world where more employers are dropping coverage.
Any other asinine comments?
Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."
The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/
Correction....I am not saying that....albeit, it sure sounds like that.
I do not feel government should be involved in any way shape or form in what I save and how I save it.
So presumably you then oppose tax breaks for such things as IRA's, Medical Savings accounts, etc...
...because they are by definition government involvement in what or how you save.
yes...I am 100% against those tax breaks.
I do not need an insentive to save money for my future.
So presumably you then oppose tax breaks for such things as IRA's, Medical Savings accounts, etc...
...because they are by definition government involvement in what or how you save.
yes...I am 100% against those tax breaks.
I do not need an insentive to save money for my future.
Do you think you are typical in that regard?
The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.
examples please
though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.
that same ruling was upheld by the appeals court as well. guess it wasnt activism after all.The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.
examples please
How about the judge in California who overturned the peoples vote on gay marriage. That there is a prime example of judicial activism in favor of what the judge considered social justice.
Obama thought the mandate was unnecessary, that people would want it anyway- and they will.
This just proves that 2/3 are duped and don't know what they're talking about. Not surprising considering the gigantic Pub Propaganda machine and the cowardly corporate media...
"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local -- or seemingly passive -- their individual origins"
there is already Supreme Court precedent that allows the Fed to regulate the commerce of a private entity.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
heres another interesting ruling from 2011:
Supreme Court Commerce Clause | Supreme Court ruling hints of difficulty for Obama insurance law foes - Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court may not be so anxious to rein in Congress' broad power to pass regulatory laws under the Constitution's commerce clause, the key point of dispute in the pending court battles over President Obama's health insurance law.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices turned down a constitutional challenge to a 2002 law that makes it a federal crime for a felon to have body armor or a bulletproof vest.
The majority's decision, rendered without comment, could make it more difficult for those challenging health insurance reform to win court orders overturning parts of the new law.
"The federal power claimed is the authority to regulate anything from the possession of French fries to the local theft of a Hershey's Kiss," argued lawyers for Cedrick Alderman, a Seattle man who appealed the body-armor law.
But the lower courts had upheld the law. The Supreme Court considered the appeal over several monthsbut rejected it Monday in Alderman vs. United States.
Alderman's appeal concerned only whether Congress had the power to enact a law regulating the possession of a product in this instance, body armor.
based on precedent such as this, there is a high likely hood that the court will uphold the mandate.
