Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

If a person had, as you said, a sense of personal responsibility then the obvious practice of personal and parental responsibility is to ask and consult those who know better when problems arise.

Which is exactly what I've done in the past and what I'll do in the future.

I spent a lot of time living in an Asian country where the most drugs are over-the-counter. I sometimes fell sick and although my parents often saw a doctor and got prescribed medicine for me, they sometimes bought a medicine that they assumed would help me. Some of these medicines require a prescription in the United States.

My parents weren't stupid. They never went in over their heads when the situation got too advanced, so I never had a major problem. I respect them and I wish to follow in their footsteps.

Too many people jump to the conclusion that normal people are completely incapable of treating themselves, but that's not always true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Could you even begin to imagine what would happen if we just let everyone have over the counter access to these drugs?

Profits for pharmacists who sell drugs to the addicted and for doctors who treat the injured? At least in this case, it comes down to the citizen's choice, so if you're careful about when you consult the doctor, it shouldn't be an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

If people want to pretend and play doctor, go right ahead, just don't go to us and blame us when we can do nothing to help you once you fuck yourselves up medically.

Of course I wouldn't blame you. What I consume is my fault in the end.

Ultimately, the root of all this is that we want to keep emergency rooms open for all. Which sounds great, but if that's the case, then emergency rooms should be simply another social service the government provides via taxes, and should be completely separate from health care and health insurance.

Done that way, it'd be far less intrusive than this idiocy.

Even if emergency rooms were operated via tax financing, it would still be a very inefficient and costly system. People still wait with treatments until they can't avoid going to the hospital anymore.

The country would be better off using taxes to allow people access to GP's for free and restrict access to emergency rooms/hospitals. Many health problems can be treated far cheaper in an early stage.

Even if emergency rooms were operated via tax financing, it would still be a very inefficient and costly system. People still wait with treatments until they can't avoid going to the hospital any more.

The fact remains that the US system is the most costly healthcare system per capita in the world yet it does not provide the best healthcare service per capita. So the money spent in the healthcare is not as productive as other countries.

Healthcare will always be expensive especially if you have an ageing population like in Europe, the US and Japan etc. but these large costs can be reduced if the service was not completely privatised. There will always be limitations and inefficiencies in any system you implement but the idea should be to find the least inefficient system. By looking at how other countries run their healthcare system it should be clear that more efficient systems can be devised that achieve this end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bri

The country would be better off using taxes to allow people access to GP's for free and restrict access to emergency rooms/hospitals. Many health problems can be treated far cheaper in an early stage.

Some procedures only require a GP and patients should be encouraged to see them whenever possible. Unfortunately many conditions can only be resolved through the hospital or Emergency room. By restricting access to such services you will be putting the poorer members of society at a disadvantage as less access means they will go less often, and that is because they cannot afford it even though they need the services desperately. Now off course if the people demand frivolous stuff like plastic surgery or other elective procedures that are not strictly necessary then you can point them to the door of some private hospital to get it done.

I'm sorry but this is precisely the reason/attitude why it annoys me to no end when I have to meet a patient in the ER who complains of something easily prevented or treatable, but gets so much worse because they fuck themselves up by self-medicating or not seeking medical help when it starts to get worse.

It's much worse when a parent does it to their own children. I've seen it so many times already that I sometimes wonder how I can control the desire to just slap those mothers and lecture them.

Even Chinese sinseh I have seen say the same thing as you - not all herbs are equal; when you drink something heaty to fight against cold you end up overheating yourself, and vice versa. There are hundreds of different combinations of drugs and each of them is for a different issue.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Some procedures only require a GP and patients should be encouraged to see them whenever possible. Unfortunately many conditions can only be resolved through the hospital or Emergency room. By restricting access to such services you will be putting the poorer members of society at a disadvantage as less access means they will go less often, and that is because they cannot afford it even though they need the services desperately. Now off course if the people demand frivolous stuff like plastic surgery or other elective procedures that are not strictly necessary then you can point them to the door of some private hospital to get it done.

Several European countries and some HMO's require GP referral to gain access to hospital care. GP's serve as a gate keepers for the system. They recognize health problems earlier, and can prevent expensive intakes and diagnoses by doctors who in turn can focus on their core specialism. From a society point of view this is efficient as GPs are far less costly than medical specialists.

The poor are better off with cheap/free GP visits as they are prone to skip health maintenance out of fear of costs and only see a ER or hospital as a last recourse, quite often in a later, more difficult and expensive to treat, stage.

We need to clone about 30 Sam Donaldsons and release them into the press corp.... I'm so fucking tired of "we report you decide" instead of "hey wait a minute, what you just said is factually incorrect!!!"

Now that it is a tax (according to Roberts) Obama has raised taxes via the individual mandate.

The only question now is--politically speaking--how will this all pan out by November?

My guess is that the Robert's decision may turn out to be what some conservatives and leftists, view as a Trojan Horse for Obamacare.

By ruling it a tax, Obamacare can now be overturned with only a reconcilliation vote of 51 in the senate rather than the required 60 for normal legislation.
This would make it much easier to repeal should the Republicans win this year.
Considering the hatred of the mandate by Americans (in addition to other issues), it is quite possible the Republicans will win congress and the presidency.
They didn't have an issue to run on prior to this, now they do.
It doesn't matter if they're lying through their teeth, perception in politics is nine-tenths of reality and now they have a major campaign slogan to run with "Repeal and Replace."
If it sticks, the Democrats will be out of power for at least 2 years and Obamacare will be history.

- Taxes are very, VERY unpopular.
- This law is very, VERY unpopular (60% oppose it.. more for likely voters).
- 0bama care did NOT even ATTEMPT to LOWER COSTS... instead figuring that we'd force everyone to buy insurance.
- This tax is going to fall heavily on the "middle class" as defined by the Democrats... folks that make too much money to get on the Democratic Gravy Train but not really enough to afford what is very expensive health insurance.
- Illegal immigrants will get a free ride off the "middle class".
- THE ECONOMY STILL SUCKS and THERE ARE NO JOBS to pay for this insurance...(*)

Spoiler for (*):

Imagine the case were only one of a couple is working, no health insurance, making too much money to qualify for freebees and then the IRS fines them 5000 bucks.... yeah baby... That's 0bama-butt-porking-care for you!

- The only way to get rid of it now is to vote out Obama

Guess what's gonna happen?

We're now back to 2010 and what happened then to the Democrats?

That's right... they got pulverized!

At this point, I guess that many moderate Democrats are very worried
Also, check those Democrats who don't wanna be seen with 0bama this coming fall convention

Don't be stupid. The only reason people are mad about the individual mandate is because it does not come with a public option.

Nobody would be giving two shits about it if there was an actual public option. Further than that, if we just went into a single-payer system, it would be a hell of a lot easier on everyone. If the rich fucks wanted to go to fancy-pants hospitals, they could still do so, but I could actually get my fucking teeth fixed which I can't do now because it will cost close to thirty thousand dollars.

As it stands now, I'm just counting the days until more of my front teeth break off and then I can't eat normally.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

He'll continue to be the poster child for the uncaring and clueless ... and that's part of the delusion sheep feed on, that the shit being dumped on them is somehow shinier if they dance for the aristocracy. That cut-and-paste echo post is probably one of the most inept analyses I've seen today o.O

I think the noises from both sides are somewhat misleading and deceptive -- I always assumed Roberts would rule this way because he's *pro-corporate* and *pro-plutocrat*. Every recent ruling has pointed that way -- especially Citizens United but in many cases.

The mandate was and is something the Insurance Industry demanded to play ball at all. The public option was and is something the Insurance Industry won't tolerate because they know the majority of people would leap on a non-profit choice. Dunking the healthcare reform would mean a revival of the public option outcry. It would mean insurance industry would not have a "maximized risk-averse pool of revenue streams".

The mandate was essentially - the corporate control over government on both sides of the aisle and like Citizens United, etc it has been sustained. Hail the plutocracy... :P

I have said this in other forums and I will say it in here, I am fed up with the morons that put a one liner and then copy/paste whole articles (since obviously they do not think by themselves, they go thru various forums regurgitating the spin their party dictates them) instead of just giving us the link. Oh, and before someone labels me "anti-right" in my country these comments are directed at the left-wingers (yeah, it is bizarro world, over here the left wingers are the lemmings that mindlessly follow their leader even if it means self-destruction). So if anything label me "anti-moron".

The mandate was essentially - the corporate control over government on both sides of the aisle and like Citizens United, etc it has been sustained. Hail the plutocracy... :P

Except it's not even that. I did some reading up on this. The mandate survived not as a mandate, but as a tax. An uncollectable tax.

Basically the IRS is tasked with collecting the "don't have health insurance" tax. Except the tax cannot be collected using leins or wage garnishment. All the IRS can do is deduct it from federal tax returns.

So basically the mandate isn't a mandate. The corporate control of the government will be quite difficult if the "mandate" can't be mandated because even if people are taxed, the amount is not that high, and the tax itself is not easily collectable.

The mandate affects basically nobody--those who make enough money to actually be taxed will just get health insurance from their jobs, after all--and I'm satisfied... well, not satisfied because I still don't have health insurance, but I won't be taxed for not having it because I don't make any money to be taxed in the first place.

The "mandate as a tax" ruling actually ended up being a case of the government simply humoring the insurance agencies and paying them lip service, but not actually doing what they wanted. Why else would the Republicans be so furious about this turn of events? They're blasting Obama for "sneaking in a tax increase" and misrepresenting the tax itself in such a way that it'll make people worry. If this was actually a win for big business, the Republicans wouldn't be crying so hard about it.

I fail to see the problem Americans have with an additional tax when it is supposed to fund something as paramount as healthcare. It's not like the United States is getting a 40% tax on par with some European countries.