Comply With Pelosi-Care Or Go To Jail

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
Helpful article but, yes, very long. Thanks.

Ex-Vol in FL wrote:

<quoted text>
Good morning, WC. I think you should pay for my new glasses, because this topic has caused me to spend many hours doing research online. <G>
I have decided that we can be manipulated into a frenzy about almost any subject unless we do some research. Tort reform is just one of many examples of this; I won't get into any of the others right now. When we listen to proponents of tort reform, we usually hear outrageous claims suggesting that if victims were not getting these generous awards, we would all benefit in the long run. It just stands to reason that the money they win has to come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" most likely is our pockets, right? Maybe not. I thought this article was very interesting and informative, but I warn you that it is LONG. Read it or not, but I do think it made some very valid points:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp157/

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe there is any tangible benefit to tort reform. The potential detriment far outweighs any possible benefit that I've heard about or read.
I have a scenario for you. Would you hire a lawyer (I'm using lawyer because I've picked up on how much you like them), sit in his/her office for up to two hours past your appointment, then be ushered to his/her office to wait another 30 minutes to only have about 10 minutes with the lawyer when he/she finally arrived? And would you then have the lawyer bill you $300 for a "comprehensive evaluation?" Yet we're more inclined to accept that from a doctor. Aaahhh, yes. You'd be livid if another professional thought so little of your time, and then had the audacity to bill you $300 or more for a mere 10-15 minutes of their time.

Westside conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually you just described a criminal defense lawyer (which is probably where my lack of impartiality towards lawyers comes from). My favorite are the DUI lawyers whose retainers may be anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 for them just to talk to you. Then in the end most people get the same deal the SAO offered them at arraignment. The total amount of work the lawyer puts into the case may be a hearing or two and some motions but not much more.
Believe my Juliana I don't like the way doctors operate either, it makes you feel like cattle. However if they are so busy going from room to room it makes you wonder how we have so few with so much demand for their services. Which also brings up the point if you have limited resources (doctors) the price for those resources will go up. Just for grins and giggles I looked in the small yellow pages for doctors and lawyers. There were 25 pages of physicians. There were 79 pages for attorneys. It seems strange that as valuable a resources as doctors are there are so few of them compared to attorneys.
However, you have made me reconsider the line on tort reform. I still think some tweeks can be made to improve the system but you bring up good points about doing more harm than good. Its something that if we are to play with we must be very careful that we don't punish the innocent while attempting to prevent abuse of the system.

Judged:

1

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
You just can't put the lawyer thing down and back off of it, can you? It's okay. I feel we've made progress.
We need to first resolve some societal issues to make healthcare better in this country. One major issue is illegal immigration. With the influx of illegal immigrants, we have thousands whose only healthcare is at the emergency room. Emergency services are far more costly (understandably). The ER isn't for that purpose, but it is being drained due to indigent care and hospitals (particularly in border states) are closing their doors. I'm not advocating that we turn someone in distress away, but I'm stating we should protect our borders to prevent illegal immigrants from pillaging our resources. HC in this country has taken a major hit because of this very issue. I'll pre-emptively say that, yes, plenty of natural citizens present to the ED for a common cold too. But dealing with illegals first can free up so many resources, which leads me to my next point...
Preventative healthcare. People need to be educated about routine examinations and preventative care, so those minor conditions don't become chronic, life threatening and very costly. That is another reason for exorbitate costs.
Working in earnest on these issues can go a long way toward HC reform in this country.

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
You just can't put the lawyer thing down and back off of it, can you? It's okay. I feel we've made progress.
We need to first resolve some societal issues to make healthcare better in this country. One major issue is illegal immigration. With the influx of illegal immigrants, we have thousands whose only healthcare is at the emergency room. Emergency services are far more costly (understandably). The ER isn't for that purpose, but it is being drained due to indigent care and hospitals (particularly in border states) are closing their doors. I'm not advocating that we turn someone in distress away, but I'm stating we should protect our borders to prevent illegal immigrants from pillaging our resources. HC in this country has taken a major hit because of this very issue. I'll pre-emptively say that, yes, plenty of natural citizens present to the ED for a common cold too. But dealing with illegals first can free up so many resources, which leads me to my next point...
Preventative healthcare. People need to be educated about routine examinations and preventative care, so those minor conditions don't become chronic, life threatening and very costly. That is another reason for exorbitate costs.
Working in earnest on these issues can go a long way toward HC reform in this country.

Tony wrote:

<quoted text>
The first and formost problem with obama and pelosi's healthcare reform is that it is FORCED and MANDATORY.
Everything after this is wrong simply because the bases it is formed on goes against and takes away freedom.
Freedom carries consequiences, the removal of freedom will not remove problems.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
Julianna, can you please clarify your statement about “make healthcare better in this country” because would like to know to what segment you are referring.

Also on another point, you stated that “People need to be educated about routine examinations and preventative care” how in the heck can anyone in America that can fog up a mirror not know or have heard about the benefits of preventative medicine, I just do not see this as a possibility for 99.7% of the population.

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
Not seeking preventative HC doesn't mean someone is stupid necessarily. In a lot of cases, I believe people simply put off examinations/annual blood tests (even those with insurance coverage) which can result in a delayed diagnosis. All the while, thinking they feel fine so they'll just "wait until next year.".

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
Preventative care can go a long way, Logic.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

It is getting better every day. New Methods, New medicines, New tools and greater knowledge of the body it IS happening right now and right here in the United States and other parts of the world.
<quoted text>
So I guess ignorance is bless in some people minds?
<quoted text>
Duh! Your point?

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
In a lot of cases, I believe people simply put off examinations/annual blood tests (even those with insurance coverage) which can result in a delayed diagnosis. All the while, thinking they feel fine so they'll just "wait until next year."

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
Not seeking preventative HC doesn't mean someone is stupid necessarily.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
On this point we agree intelligent people I think understand this.
<quoted text>
So what does it mean?

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
It could mean a number of things:
Someone young may believe annual examinations don't apply to them.
Many people are busy working, and they intend to get around to it but don't. Some avoid going to the doctor because they dislike it so much. And a common myth includes believing symptom free means everything is fine.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

<quoted text>
So how to you resolve those issues?
Who knows maybe that has already been provided for under Obamacare, get your yearly or receive a fine or maybe even jail.

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
I get your point. I don't think the gov't can mandate an examination, nor would I want it to. I just know that through education we can decrease chronic illness. That alone would reduce HC costs. Now, whether that savings would be passed on to us is the real question?

Tony wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would you think government couldn't mandate examinations?
Once the forced mandatory healthcare insurance is passed the door will be opened for government to add anything they want to the program.
The program is to gain control of the people, chip away at individual freedom and pave the way for the governmant to take over the healthcare insurance industry.
Don't think they can do it???? Noone thought the government would own auto companies, banks or train industries.
How are they doing this...bailout and take over.
once the government is in competition with the insurance companies they can force them into finanical problems, throw some(to big to fail)bailout money their way and become owners.
You're still buying into the "government wouldn't do that" way of thinking, when there is all the proof anyone needs that the government will do ANYTHING they are allowed to get away with.
The government is your enemy.
BTW...a national police force is already a frequent conversation around Washington. And the topic has been brought up in obama's chats.

Tony wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW...a national police force is already a frequent conversation around Washington. And the topic has been brought up in obama's chats.

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm also aware that about a year ago, the gov't was busy installing cameras on major bridges, highways and many intersections throughout the country. All for "our safety." Right....

Julianna wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the information. Actually, our views aren't so far apart on this issue. I meant "can't" constitutionally. I've had a busy morning, but really need to devote more time to Topix :)
I was reading something very interesting recently. This adm is now moving to redefine what is considered a Tier 1 company in this country, having the federal reserve determine divestiture of most "non-financial" activities. It would also subject companies to new capital, reporting and other supervisory requirements. Under the guise of avoiding future bailouts while gleaning more power? Maybe/maybe not? Could be good in some ways, but could be very bad. Maybe I'll start a thread on this soon. It is worth looking at more closely.

Mr Logic in Jax wrote:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/ 11/06/committee-confirms-compl y-with-pelosi-care-or-go-to-ja il/
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
n response to the JCT letter, Camp said:“This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.”[page 1]
-–-–-–-–--
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”[page 2]
-–-–-–-–--
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”[page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.