Proposition C

The state of Missouri just passed Proposition C. Why? I think that perhaps the voters did not understand it.

If I carry health insurance to cover my medical expenses, why don’t the rest of you have to? Hospitals say they have to treat whoever comes in. For those who can’t pay, the cost is passed on to those who have insurance.

Is that just? Isn’t that in a way socialized medicine, when the hospital gives the care for free?

A Kevin Yoder campaign e-mail stated, “Never before have Americans had to buy a good or a service as a part of being a citizen.” Gee, I wonder whether he drives a car. I never have been able to get a car license without evidence of insurance, thank goodness.

I am thinking I will drop Medicare and the supplement and let you who voted for Proposition C pay for me.

Helen Walkinshaw
Lexington, Mo.

Comments

[KatieK]

I would recommend repealing EMTALA and at the same time to establish a charitable fund that would cover the cost of ambulance service and emergency medical treatment for those who are uninsured. EMTALA is an unfunded mandate and it’s resulted in overuse of emergency rooms and service that goes unpaid – meaning hospitals pass along those costs to the insured patients.

Your arguments about insurance are a red herring. Whether or not insurance companies operate ethically is a completely different subject.

[Jeff in KC]

Another thought: I see the words PERSONAL CHOICE being thrown around a lot in this thread. I'd be interested how many people would still be insisting on the government staying out of personal choices if this discussion dealt with a medical procedure that a young woman felt she had to get. That's my "stirring the put just to get folks riled up" moment today... ;~)

That said, several of you keep saying that auto insurance is a choice because you are choosing to drive. Remember, the law requires auto insurance if you own a car, to protect you and those around you in case your car is involved in damage or a crash, and to pay for the subsequent repairs. Yes, you choose to have a car, putting yourself in the category of folks who may wrack up vehicle damage bills at some time or another.

Likewise, you choose to stay alive, and you choose where you live, which puts you in the category of folks who are likely at some time or another in your life to wrack up medical bills.

Which is more likely to happen, a person who gets a car but drives very little, needing insurance to pay for a car accident, or a person needing insurance to pay for medical care? One is insurance in case of a possibility, the other is insure for an eventuality. Yet some are arguing that it's more fair to require the insurance in case of a possibility, and unfair to require insurance for something that you know they will eventually actually need it for at some point in their life.

Again, just some thoughts.

[Jeff in KC]

Another thought: I see the words PERSONAL CHOICE being thrown around a lot in this thread. I'd be interested how many people would still be insisting on the government staying out of personal choices if this discussion dealt with a medical procedure that a young woman felt she had to get. That's my "stirring the put just to get folks riled up" moment today... ;~)

That said, several of you keep saying that auto insurance is a choice because you are choosing to drive. Remember, the law requires auto insurance if you own a car, to protect you and those around you in case your car is involved in damage or a crash, and to pay for the subsequent repairs. Yes, you choose to have a car, putting yourself in the category of folks who may wrack up vehicle damage bills at some time or another.

Likewise, you choose to stay alive, and you choose where you live, which puts you in the category of folks who are likely at some time or another in your life to wrack up medical bills.

Which is more likely to happen, a person who gets a car but drives very little, needing insurance to pay for a car accident, or a person needing insurance to pay for medical care? One is insurance in case of a possibility, the other is insure for an eventuality. Yet some are arguing that it's more fair to require the insurance in case of a possibility, and unfair to require insurance for something that you know they will eventually actually need it for at some point in their life.

Again, just some thoughts.

[Jeff in KC]

KatieK, am I understanding correctly, that you feel the law should be changed so that when EMS or FIre responds to a 9-1-1 call about someone having a heart attack, they need the person having the heart attack to prove they have insurance that will cover the entirety of their medical treatment from there on out, or that they have enough money in their savings account to cover it, before they start providing CPR?

It's all fine and dandy to say you want to change the law so hospitals don't have to provide service if they don't get paid; it's a completely different scenario to do away with medical and emergency services just because someone can't pay.

Just out of curiosity, does your health insurance cover every single possible illness, condition or procedure?

I've personally known far too many people who had insurance, who needed a procedure (either emergency or for ongoing condition), whose insurance then dropped them (or at the very least dug until they found excuses to refuse to pay). It's far too common. Many of the insurance companies will happily take your money for years until you actually need something, and then find (create?) some reason they don't have to pay. It's happened in my immediate family, and it's happened to friends.

The answer is to fix insurance so that it's not a scam, NOT change laws to make it so hospitals don't have to treat people who can't pay.

[KatieK]

Once again, you get it wrong, whispering. Your examples include tax money and driving. The letter and the law in question have to do with neither. Besides, if you don’t want to pay for other people’s accidents, stop driving and you won’t have to buy insurance.

Look back at the letter “Hospitals say they have to treat whoever comes in. For those who can’t pay, the cost is passed on to those who have insurance.”

Let me say it again. One reason for high medical costs is that hospitals are required by law to provide a service that they will not be paid for. The simplest way to solve this problem is to repeal that law. The bureaucratic way is to pass more and more laws trying to solve the problems they create with each new edict . . . until we end up with the public thinking that taxing sunless tans is a dandy idea because, after all, your lumpy moles are costing all of us.

As to the “winger’s philanthropic spirit” . . . I’m assuming you’re referring to conservatives, and yes, I’d trust their generosity. Just as I’d trust that, should your medical costs decrease dramatically, you too would donate more of your income to help others.

[whispering_to_kc]

I suspect Helen would have better luck depending on a Soylent Green solution to her medical issues than any winger's philanthropic spirit.

Are we to pick and choose what of our fellow Americans' actions the rest of us are going to pay for?

I haven't been to Arrowhead since 1978. Why should my taxes support that facility while JoCo residents use it "free"?

I haven't had an auto accident since the 80s. I'm tired of paying for everyone else's poor driving habits.

As Bush's War was certainly nothing I supported, I'd just as soon not pay for that either.

Should I go on?

[Greghand]

Helen doesn't trust her own judgement whe running her personal affairs therefore she relies on Obama and fellow Democrats to make life decisions for her.

[KatieK]

“Won't that result in a lovely kind of America.”

The huge government intrusion into our lives comes from that legislation, and Congress’ subsequent attempts to correct the problems it created. The letter writer and millions like her are tired of soaring medical prices and she thinks that somehow forcing people to do what they don’t want to do will solve the problem. The simplest solution is to relieve Helen of the responsibility for anyone other than herself.

I’d be willing to donate to charity hospitals and clinics in return for having the government leave my medical care alone, and I’ll bet the millions of Helens out there would, too.

[Greghand]

You DO NOT to jail.
H. R. 3590 pg. 131
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
Posted by: Leopold
Thank you Leopold! You confirmed exactly what I wrote! Pleases reread this part!
"Any failure by a taxpayer to "timely pay" any penalty"
If you are a lawyer you wouldn't last very long!

[Smarter Than You]

If limited reading comprehension and irrational flights of fancy are how you define a “gay joke,” then yes, Lispering, you are a gay joke! Or, you could read for content the actual explanation that was posted at 6:43:49 (Lispering (a hybrid of Lies + Whispering for those who were curious about the moniker)).

What doesn’t shock anybody is that you refused to address the documentation in the post. Can’t we find a worthy representative of the left for these blogs?

Obama will be available in just over 27 months (although it may require extreme credulity to deem Obama “worthy”). Until then, do we need to place a want ad?

[GCYL]

“Helen. Work to repeal the law that requires hospitals to treat everyone..”

Agreed. A 200 page law would have worked just fine. For those who decided to ignore health insurance, facing the consequences of that choice would be a greater motivator than paying a fine. Our society will continue to pay for those who truly are denied or can not obtain proper health insurance.

[GCYL]

“What's that, a gay joke?” - Lispering

No, you’re just a joke.

It's nice to see you remain "in character".

[GCYL]

“What's next? Death panels?” - I’m one of the many “invincible 20 year olds” who chose not to buy health insurance.

Indeed whispering what would be next? Making you live or die with the consequences of such a choice? That can’t possibly happen in your Nanny State.

“Won't that result in a lovely kind of America. Soylent Green is next?” - I’m hysterically funny.

No, you’re just being hysterical.

Pigs are omnivores, which means that they consume both plants and animals. These particular pigs enjoy consuming tax payers. Apparently we’ve already arrived at Soylent Green.

[whispering_to_kc]

"... Hey Lispering ..."

What's that, a gay joke?

Sorry sweetie, I don't swing that way.

It's nice to see you remain "in character".

[whispering_to_kc]

Well, medical treatment based on your ability to pay? And thus those without the funds, payable in advance, to compensate the medico would lay down in the gutter outside the ER instead ... and die?

What's next? Death panels?

Won't that result in a lovely kind of America. Soylent Green is next?

[KatieK]

" Hospitals say they have to treat whoever comes in. For those who can’t pay, the cost is passed on to those who have insurance."

Well, there's the answer right there, Helen. Work to repeal the law that requires hospitals to treat everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. That's what caused the problems in the first place.

[Leopold]

You DO NOT to jail.

H. R. 3590 pg. 131

‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

[Smarter Than You]

Hey Lispering (a hybrid of Lies + Whispering for those who were curious about the moniker), how about you defend Obamacare, or at least Obama? Since you're an avowed Obamanista, I’ll help you start by documenting what others who voted for POTUS are saying:

WSJ, 8/25
“Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) has said that the new federal program to fund long-term care—the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act [part of Obamacare]—is "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of." Mr. Conrad and five of his Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) before the legislation passed opposing the program and expressing "grave concerns" about its fiscal sustainability.”

TIME, Today
“A sense of disappointment, bordering on betrayal, has been growing across the country, especially in moderate states like Indiana, where people now openly say they didn't quite understand the President they voted for in 2008. The fear most often expressed is that Obama is taking the country somewhere they don't want to go. "We bought what he said. He offered a lot of hope," says Fred Ferlic, an Obama voter and orthopedic surgeon in South Bend who has since soured on his choice. Ferlic talks about the messy compromises in health care reform, his sense of an inhospitable business climate and the growth of government spending under Obama. "He's trying to Europeanize us, and the Europeans are going the other way," continues Ferlic, a former Democratic campaign donor who plans to vote Republican this year. "The entire American spirit is being broken."”

MARKET WATCH, Sept. 1, 2010 “Two years can make a world of difference in politics. In 2008, the swing state of Ohio helped elect President Barack Obama over John McCain by giving the Democrat 52% of the vote to 47% for his Republican rival. In a new poll, however, Obama would lose 50% to 42% to … former President George W. Bush!”

---

Now we know why you refuse to defend the specifics of this President. Maybe you should take the high road like the other Obama supporters and just play the race/hate speech card and threaten the lives of those who won’t blindly play follow-your-leader. . .

KY3 NEWS, Today
“OZARK, Mo. -- When it comes to politics, there may be as many opinions as cars cruising down U.S. 65. So, naturally, there are different reactions to a billboard south of Ozark that says "Voted Obama? Embarrassed yet?"

Critchfield [who paid for the billboard] says he's received death threats due to the sign; people accuse him of hate speech and racism. He insists the billboard was for something more American in the name of discourse, conversation, and old-fashioned debate.

"If everybody thinks [President Obama's] done a great job and they're very happy," he said, "then I guess they'd be buying billboards saying 'I'm proud to have voted for him.' That's what makes America great, isn't it?"

[whispering_to_kc]

The "Agricultural Adjustment Act" is the root legislation for today's farm bills.

None of it pays anyone to kill animals or burn crops. It's all about price supports and crop insurance and soil conservation and idled farm land, putting a floor under farm income.

Usually, the biggest whiners over farm supports are the biggest beneficiaries. Like that Jungerman absentee farmer from Raytown/Bates County in the news a while back placing his "Democrats are commies" trailer along the highway while he was cashing millions in government support checks.

[whispering_to_kc]

Once the Republicons have killed off SS, Medicare, unemploment insurance, the NLRB and any thing else leftover from the New Deal days, old people can go back to living like the way it used to be.

In poorhouses. Old people warehoused in what were basically prisons.

But the good news is their lifespans were shortened living that way to it'll be cheap to try it again, in the long run.

Anyone older than 65 or so is economically nonviable anyway so an early death is better for business.