Link Stats
Added By: Alex
Added on: 09/29/2009 @ 8:30:41 PM
Link View Count: 519
Politics
Politics
Rate this Link
Yours:

Rated 0 times.

No additional government run insurance

So far anyway.
View External Link [news.yahoo.com]
Back to Link List
newalex.jpgAlex - 3618 Posts
10/29/2009 @ 01:28:58 PM
 Quote this comment
Hopefully this is the right link

http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/66881562.html?blog=y

"Mr. Speaker, Wisconsinites might want to know that just recently our Blue Cross-Blue Shield program announced that people in their 20s under this health care bill will see a 199% increase in their health insurance premiums. People in their 40s will see a 122% increase in their health insurance premiums."

And if you haven't heard, it sounds like the government-run plan is back in the bill.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons
12/21/2009 @ 10:06:03 AM
 Quote this comment
I don't want in any way to start another health care debate, as it has been done here before, and come on people, it's Christmas, but this was a very entertaining activity for me and should be for you if you have followed the path of the legislation at all and are a total nerd.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/cant-tell-conservatives-and-liberals.html

I watch the Sunday morning shows pretty religiously and have heard many of the quotes either said live or referenced in interviews, and I still got a lot of them wrong.

I also think this fits in well with the Nutcan theme of making the exact same argument from 4 different angles.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
12/21/2009 @ 01:19:40 PM
 Quote this comment
I got 7 right. It also shows how pointless it is to pull one line quotes out of a larger conversation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
12/21/2009 @ 01:35:15 PM
 Quote this comment
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:19:40 PM
I got 7 right. It also shows how pointless it is to pull one line quotes out of a larger conversation.

...or just how confusing the debate actually is.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 12/21/2009 4:09:41 pm
scott.jpgScott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue.
12/21/2009 @ 04:10:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:35:15 PM
Alex Wrote - Today @ 02:19:40 PM
I got 7 right. It also shows how pointless it is to pull one line quotes out of a larger conversation.
...or just how confusing the debate actually is.


or better yet, how you should judge what the person says rather than the person saying it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel
12/23/2009 @ 12:02:10 AM
 Quote this comment
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=9405283

Some peeps checking into the bribe, er..."deal", made with Nebraska to get 60 votes for the bill in the Senate because it might violate the Constitution. Of course, so does most of the rest of the bill too and no one is talking about that, so I'm sure nothing will come of this.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/26/2009 @ 09:24:49 PM
 Quote this comment
how does the rest of the bill violate the constitution? This bill doesnt even have a government public option or medicare expansion. OMG blue cross blue shield said it was going to raise premiums. THEY ARE A HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, what do you think they were going to say. This is a bill designed to help the consumer and stop the insurance companies from paying their CEOs millions in Executive pay. Damn alex take your head our of your ass for once, PLEASE.emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
2887.gifAlex - 3618 Posts
12/26/2009 @ 11:35:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Mandatory insurance.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/27/2009 @ 12:28:22 PM
 Quote this comment
So if mandatory insurance is a violation against the constitution where were u when they made car insurance mandatory. Where were conservatives on mandatory car insurance!? Where is the supreme court in mandatory car insurance. It obviously isn't a violation or there would have been uproar.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 12:59:50 PM
 Quote this comment
For one, auto insurance mandates are done at a state level, not the federal level. The states generally have much more leeway in areas like this than the federal government, therefore, what may be unconstitutional if done by the federal government, may be perfectly fine if done by individual states.

Secondly, auto insurance is mandated only if you own/drive a car. If you don't want to pay for the insurance, you can walk, bike, or use public transportation. The proposed health insurance mandate, however, will apply to everybody as an essential requirement for living in this country. There is no getting away from it. The distinction might be practically meaningless for most, but it is still there.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
Matt screwed with this at 12/27/2009 1:09:25 pm
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 03:38:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Show me exactly where in the constitution where you see the violation.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/27/2009 @ 03:42:38 PM
 Quote this comment
And it was a fed law that mandated auto insurance. I see the revelence, u don't?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire.jpgMicah - Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons
12/27/2009 @ 04:45:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 04:42:38 PM
And it was a fed law that mandated auto insurance. I see the revelence, u don't?


Car insurance is a state mandated law. It isn't mandated in every state, and is completely constitutional because of the 10th amendment.

Mandated health care would fall under the commerce clause, which is interpreted differently based on the tone of the supreme court at the time. Cases could be made for or against it as constitutional, but no one here is a constitutional law scholar, and even they can't agree on it, so I wouldn't say there is a clear cut case either way. Most people do agree that the supreme court now would probably uphold the current health care bill as written.

Single-payer, however, would be (mostly) unarguably constitutional :)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Micah messed with this at 12/27/2009 4:48:01 pm
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
12/28/2009 @ 05:05:25 AM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:38:43 PM
Show me exactly where in the constitution where you see the violation.


I think it's indicative of how our perspective on the role of government has changed over the past 200 years, that we see more statements like the one quoted above instead of something like, "Show me where, exactly, in the Constitution does it give the government the power to do _______" (which, in my view, is the more proper way to approach the subject).

The Constitution was written at a time when the framers saw a need for a federal government stronger than what we had under the Articles of Confederation. Most were also weary of making too strong of a government, however, so they created a strong but limited federal government to balance out the power of the states. If you look at Article One of the Constitution, you see that the powers of Congress are defined and fairly limited. Further (as Micah touched on), the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") basically says that Congress only has the powers given to it by the Constitution, and the states get everything else.

Unfortunately (in my mind at least), over the years (and especially since the New Deal) the federal Government has kept pushing the limits of its power by broadly interpreting various clauses in the Constitution (the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and General Welfare Clauses, among others). The Supreme Court has mostly gone along with the other two branches on this, and now we have a massive federal Government with almost unlimited power, and state Governments that are mostly impotent as a result. It's a complete reversal of what the framers intended.

As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (which dealt with whether the federal government has the power to "trump" state laws and ban marijuana), "Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers". Expanding this to health care, if the federal Government can tell us what we have to buy, and from whom we have to buy it, then there really is no limit to its powers.

As Micah mentioned though, many "experts" seem to think that the Supreme Court will approve the bill. I've read a few opinions that while this bill should be unconstitutional under the Constitution's original meaning/intent, the Court has given such leeway in the past, and not having the courage to exclude such a prominent bill as this one, they will find a way to squeeze this one in too. Of course, you never really know. As much as they would deny it, the Court is influenced somewhat by public opinion. If the outcry over the bill continues to gain strength, the Court may find it easier to start pushing back against the ever expanding limits of federal power.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Matt messed with this at 12/28/2009 5:05:51 am
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 12:46:32 AM
 Quote this comment
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

That was the commerce clause of the constitution. Show me how the government forcing you to be health insurance or face a fine, so that you dont end up in the emergency room without health insurance and have to be paid for off the backs of taxpayers, unconstitutional?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/29/2009 @ 01:11:39 AM
 Quote this comment
So if single- payer health insurance is unconstitutional than medicare, social security, S- Chip, and medicaid is all unconsitituional as well? wtf? and How is it that you arrive to the conclusion that the New Deal was the begining of government is pushing the limits of its power? How is the New Deal or anything about the New Deal unconsitituional?
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:05:25 AM
Jfk10intex Wrote - 12/27/2009 @ 03:38:43 PM
Show me exactly where in the constitution where you see the violation.




As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (which dealt with whether the federal government has the power to "trump" state laws and ban marijuana), "Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers". Expanding this to health care, if the federal Government can tell us what we have to buy, and from whom we have to buy it, then there really is no limit to its powers.

Ok #1, the Federal government isnt telling you, you have to buy this specific type of insurance. Its saying we want you to have health insurance so in the event you need it, for whatever purpose, you dont have to be helped out by tax-payerss back and raising premiums for the rest of us simply because the hospital had to pay for what you didnt pay for.

There is a problem with our healthcare system today and it is people who dont have health insurance.

Example : Bob thinks he is superman. He is 23 years old and he is enjoying his youth, and being a young adult and doing what young adults do best. Party and have fun. One day bob notices he has pains in his stomach area and he goes to see a doctor and get it checked out. The doctors vist is only 40 bucks so he can afford it. The doctor tells him he has ulcers and he has to have a procedure thats going to cost him 5,000 dollars. He doesnt have that kind of money, no insurance, and if he does nothing these ulcers will get bad enough where they will slowly but surely kill him within a couple a year. Bob is a high school student, didnt go to college, but works at the local fast food resturant. NO health insurance. And in this country if you want to get treated at the hospital without health insurance, you better be pretty damn sick. So bob waits about a year, and one morning he wakes up and vomits blood. At first its bright red, then it turns black after a couple of hours. So bob has a friend take him to the hospital. The hospital rushes him into the surgery where he has his ulcers removed and then everything turns out fine and bob rests for the night. Bob wakes up the next morning and a social worker walks in and asks bob if he has insurance. Bob has no insurance. The nurse asks bob is bob has money to pay for it. Bob says the most he has is 800 dollars in his bank account for emergency fund. The hospital of course cannot keep Bob in the hospital until he pays up so bob forks over his 800 dollars and then promptly leaves. Bob recieves monthly mail from the hospital but never gets the chance to pay them back because bob cant even afford to have health insurance, much less pay for his surgery.

What happens, and this happens quite often, people going to the hospital getting treatments they cant afford because in this country if you need a life saving procedure it is done regardless of cost. Who foots the bill? The hospital. Who does the hospital foot the bill to? The patients with health insurance. Who does the health insurance foot the bill to? Its customers. Who suffers? the customers, with rising premiums. That is the problem today. How do we solve it? Make everyone buy health insurance regardless of their age, gender, or race. Don't buy it and you will pay a fine. Plain and Simple. Constitutional and all. I'm shocked that all of you here are conservative. Let me guess, none of you voted for Obama!!!! Let me guess, all of you watch Fox News!!!! No, im not pshycic. Just ask Bill O Reily, he is the psychic one. :)emoticonemoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jfk10intex perfected this at 12/29/2009 1:13:31 am
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/29/2009 @ 01:16:38 AM
 Quote this comment
by the way when you said the feds can tell us what to buy and whom to buy it from and that the govt has unlimited powers, thats all wrong right now. you know that right? The fed isnt tell us whoom to buy it from. Its our choice. They are just telling us we have to buy it.

ex: we have to buy soda, but we can buy dr. pepper, pepsi, coke, mt dew, fanta, diet coke, sprite, ect.

do you read what you write before you post? do you check to see if your writing makes sense? Do you check your facts from mulitple sources for verification? Do you read both sides before making a conclusion. These are some questions you should be asking yourself to stop yourself from looking like an idiot. -.-emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3354 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 01:43:21 AM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 12:46:32 AM
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

That was the commerce clause of the constitution. Show me how the government forcing you to be health insurance or face a fine, so that you dont end up in the emergency room without health insurance and have to be paid for off the backs of taxpayers, unconstitutional?


Because back then "commerce" meant trade. The clause was meant to prevent one state from disrupting trade in other states, not to micromanage entire industries. If you look at the clause, this makes sense. Foreign Nations and Indian Tribes are sovereign entities separate from the control of the United States. We trade with them and can set up rules about how we trade with them, but we can't regulate their industry.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - 229 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 01:49:51 AM
 Quote this comment
Right we arent regulating any industry, what we are doing is making everyone buy health insurance so that we dont have tax payers paying for other peoples health care proceudures/ bills. How are we regulating foreign trade with the current health care bill? How are other states micro managing entire industries? You havent made your point matt.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
12/29/2009 @ 02:01:11 AM
 Quote this comment
The current health care bill is most certainly regulating the health care industry.

As I said before, the Federal Government has limited and defined powers. If it's not listed in those powers, they should not be able to do it. The justification of government intrusion is that they are regulating interstate commerce. As I pointed out in my previous post, under the original meaning of the commerce clause, the Government's proposed actions would not pass the test, therefore, like Scotty, they just don't have the power.

Even if you do accept a looser view about what "commerce" can be regulated by Congress, this still is probably unconstitutional. Congress is not regulating any act like growing wheat or selling a car. People are forced to comply or be fined, just by being alive. If they say I have to buy health insurance for the benefit of others, then they can just as easily say I have to farm wheat in my backyard or I have to sell my car because it would be for the benefit of others. That is a federal Government of virtually unlimited powers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 2 times, last at 12/29/2009 2:09:09 am
pyzamOmgWtf.jpgJfk10intex - My computer is better than yours!!!!
12/29/2009 @ 02:14:35 AM
 Quote this comment
Well no because growing wheat in your backyard is making an anaology to living in a communist country, which btw i dont appreciate. The growing wheat in your own backyard analogy is like comparing apples and oranges to buying health insurance. We arent saying you have to buy blue cross blue shield. You can buy any other health insurance company's product, we dont care, just get yourself insured, for the benefit of others. In your wheat analogy it would be like this : you can grow whatever you want, we dont care, just grow something for the benefit of others. Whether its grass in your front lawn, or a field of crops, we dont care. So Matt you think we should take out Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security, and Food Stamps? None of those are in the consitituion. You think we should have people starve on the streets with zero medical care? Because the consitition doesnt allow for the govt to use tax payer dollars to help pay for anyones food, or shelter, or medical care, regardless of income. The governments actions would not pass YOUR strict view of the consitituion but neither would any other social peice of legislation ever passed in the history of this nation. What the founders did allow for that you dont mention matty, is that congress can pass laws that benefit the common wealth of the united states of America. That is exactly what congress has done, as far as social legislation is concerned, will continue to do as long as we have continued and growing support in congress for the democratic party.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
12/29/2009 @ 03:00:15 AM
 Quote this comment
See, now I don't know if you're just stupid or being a troll (which is pretty stupid in itself, so I guess it doesn't matter).

As a matter of fact, the bill will tell me what insurance I have to buy. The plans will have to "qualify" and those that don't, I wouldn't be able to buy. If I feel that a no-frills, catastrophic plan would make the most sense for me, I probably won't be able to buy it if its not "approved". This leads to a bigger problem with this bill. You complain that we have to subsidize the uninsured by paying higher premiums. This is true to some extent, of course we are also subsidizing Medicare patients since Medicare doesn't reimburse doctors their full market rate, so others make up the difference. Also, this causes many doctors to decide to just not take any medicare patients, so they end up in the emergency room for routine things, causing the hospital to pass on the costs to others. This doesn't make me eager to see anymore Government solutions to problems.

Going back to subsidizing the uninsured by paying higher premiums though, this bill wouldn't fix the problem, it would just shuffle around who's getting screwed and who is getting the better deal (if there is one to be had, since most people say that the bill will cause premiums to rise anyway). This bill would force people (especially young, healthy people) to buy more insurance than they want, or really even need (since, on average, most young, healthy people don't consume as much health care as others). Meanwhile, the bill will force companies to insure people who will be using much more health care than they will be paying for, so you now have one group of people effectively subsidizing another, which is what we have now.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3354 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 03:25:53 AM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 02:14:35 AM
So Matt you think we should take out Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security, and Food Stamps? None of those are in the consitituion.


I'm not against social safety nets in general, but I do think that the Federal Government running them is not ideal (and I think many founders may agree). And while you could probably make decent arguments for them being unconstitutional (or at least not what the founders intended), those programs seem to be arguable under the General Welfare clause of the Constitution and are different enough from the health care bill that the arguments against the health care bill may not apply to them.

Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 02:14:35 AM
You think we should have people starve on the streets with zero medical care? Because the consitition doesnt allow for the govt to use tax payer dollars to help pay for anyones food, or shelter, or medical care, regardless of income. The governments actions would not pass YOUR strict view of the consitituion but neither would any other social peice of legislation ever passed in the history of this nation.


That is the definition of a straw man argument.

There are ways to make health care more accessible and more affordable, while also staying true to the founder's beliefs in federalism and liberty. We should be pursuing those options instead of adding more federal intervention into an area where previous government intervention is a big part of why it is screwed up in the first place.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 12/29/2009 3:28:32 am
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 10:05:07 AM
 Quote this comment
So uh, who gave Matt the 0-nuts in regards to the Commerce Clause, what it was/is for and how it works?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 10:19:43 AM
 Quote this comment
Jfk10intex Wrote - Today @ 02:16:38 AM

do you read what you write before you post? do you check to see if your writing makes sense? Do you check your facts from mulitple sources for verification? Do you read both sides before making a conclusion. These are some questions you should be asking yourself to stop yourself from looking like an idiot. -.-emoticon


Please stop with these kind of statements. If I want to waste my time reading this I can go to any internet forum I desire. There are intelligent, legitimate conservatives out there (just like there are whacked out crazy liberals), and Matt pretty much always fits the definition of one. Its also possible to have intelligent, legitimate conversations while completely disagreeing with one another. Read old threads to see. Search for Religion, Healthcare, Brett Favre, etc.

With the current bill, you basically have these 3 things:
1) A bill that doesn't require you to purchase insurance
2) coverage for pre-existing conditions
3) more affordable health insurance

Pick TWO, because you won't get all 3 with an entirely private health insurance system. The 2 I want the most are in there, and I am more than fine with the individual mandate due to the number of children and young adults I see with enormously expensive diseases on a regular basis. I really see the 10th amendment as having caused and contributed more trouble than its worth (war, slavery, segregation, George Wallace, etc), and since there definitely isn't a clear-cut unconstitutional argument against the bill, it doesn't worry me too much.

Matt, how would you make health care more accessible and affordable, without mentioning tort reform. I'm all for it, but its putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Also, because I deem it noteworthy, the Mental Health Parity Act officially goes into effect on January 1, after 12 years of sitting in congress. Basically it forces insurance companies to treat mental health visits the same as physical health visits, by eliminating restrictions on number of visits and higher copays. This comes with an almost unnoticeable increase in premiums, according to the CBO. This will save people who need it the most thousands of dollars. Combined with the Wisconsin Puppy Mill Law, this has been a good year for my personal conquests.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Micah messed with this 2 times, last at 12/29/2009 10:28:24 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 10:46:06 AM
 Quote this comment
I think one way they can lower costs is by cutting out the coverage for quack medicine. Chelation therapy is meant to treat a few specific conditions, but it's being used to treat a number of things it can't work for, and probably causes more damage in the process. Homeopathy and acupuncture are complete BS. Chiropractic care is fairly unnecessary at best, and dangerous pseudo scientific nonsense at worst. (While some are more-or-less physical therapists, many Chiroprators work on infants whose bones/spine aren't even developed yet, and other think your back being out of alignment is why you get sick.) The list of snake oil medical treatments is growing by the day, and more and more of them are starting to be covered out of sense of "we don't want to leave anyone out" political correctness usually with pressure from, or a direct mandate from, the government who have to pretend that everything is a matter of opinion.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 12/29/2009 10:49:19 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 10:52:10 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - Today @ 10:19:43 AM
Also, because I deem it noteworthy, the Mental Health Parity Act officially goes into effect on January 1, after 12 years of sitting in congress. Basically it forces insurance companies to treat mental health visits the same as physical health visits, by eliminating restrictions on number of visits and higher copays. This comes with an almost unnoticeable increase in premiums, according to the CBO. This will save people who need it the most thousands of dollars. Combined with the Wisconsin Puppy Mill Law, this has been a good year for my personal conquests.


Is there a tl;dr version of this somewhere? I'm not sure how I feel about this at face value. Are there provisions that separate the people that are a few missed sessions from going on a murder-spree from the people who just want to vent about their co-workers and hear themselves talk 3 times a week at $100 an hour?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - We can do this easy, or we can do it real easy
12/29/2009 @ 11:49:40 AM
 Quote this comment
What is tl;dr?

I don't usually get to ramped up about causes, but why does mental health always have to distinguish between someone who is going to kill their family, and a person who just wants to cry about their problems? People consider the mind this autonomous being, separate from all physical problems that could occur to the rest of the body. A person who needs a weekly therapy session can gain just as much health, well-being, and life expectancy increases, as does a person who needs cholesterol medication and gets a prescription. Will there be gaming the system? Of course, but I could also walk into many doctor's offices tomorrow and walk out with a standing prescription for adult ADD. It isn't any different from anyone else that games the system, but people are always willing to throw out the incredible good something might do because of the 3 people who might make bad use of it.

Kids that are sexually abused and end up in the hospital one night don't need the medical attention even remotely as much as they need the mental attention, sometimes for the rest of their lives. But they get the medical attention and then are told that IF you get insurance someday, you might be able to see a therapist once every 3 or 4 weeks, if you have mental health coverage at all. But if your leg hurts, you can go see as many specialists as you want as often as you want until you deem it better.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Micah perfected this at 12/29/2009 11:50:58 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8953 Posts
12/29/2009 @ 12:38:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, you can't ignore the fact that this is a harder to define area. What you just described is part of my knee-jerk concern. You could go lie to your doctor and get treatment for something, but you'd know you were pulling a fast one. In this case, you could be genuinely mentally distressed that your husband got you a blue Mercedes instead of the grey one you really wanted, and need to talk it over with someone. I'm not ignoring mental health as an issue, but I don't think we can ignore that a lot of it is driven by narcissistic whiners who genuinely beleive they have to see a therapist every other day because no one has life harder than they do.*

It's somewhat like what I saying before. Some of these treatments have a legit place, some are unnecessary, and some are just quackery. Sure, talking to a therapist might help, but what about those mental health clinics where everyone sits at the center of a power pyramid, holding crystals, for $500? An hour of relaxing WOULD help most people, thus you really couldn't say those places don't qualify. If you had to put a percentage on the number of people who see therapists who don't have any bigger mental issues than most of the rest of us what would that be? I guarantee you it would be more than the percent of people who lie their way into a hospital. How many patients really have no actual mental issue, they just want to talk with someone? I don't see how that's a lot different than an elective medical procedure.

You're moving into an area where the issues and results aren't really quantifiable in any meaningful way. I'm not so sure it is true that you can so to a regular doctor infinite times for a hurt leg and your insurance just keeps paying. I think at some point they would tell you there's nothing more to be done.

Edit: I agree that for rape victims, veterans, and other such things, this should be done, but I'm not so sure that we can't attempt to separate want from need here, just like someone getting rhinoplasty because they smashed their face in a car accident and someone doing it because they want a smaller nose.

*Exaggeration of course, but it is elective for many many many patients.

And tl;dr means "too long; didn't read" a tl;dr version would be a summary.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 2 times, last at 12/29/2009 12:51:41 pm
images.jpgcraig - No, it's time to move on.
12/29/2009 @ 12:54:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 12:38:52 PM
Well, you can't ignore the fact that this is a harder to define area. What you just described is part of my knee-jerk concern. You could go lie to your doctor and get treatment for something, but you'd know you were pulling a fast one. In this case, you could be genuinely mentally distressed that your husband got you a blue Mercedes instead of the grey one you really wanted, and need to talk it over with someone. I'm not ignoring mental health as an issue, but I don't think we can ignore that a lot of it is driven by narcissistic whiners who genuinely beleive they have to see a therapist every other day because no one has life harder than they do.*

It's somewhat like what I saying before. Some of these treatments have a legit place, some are unnecessary, and some are just quackery. Sure, talking to a therapist might help, but what about those mental health clinics where everyone sits at the center of a power pyramid, holding crystals, for $500? An hour of relaxing WOULD help most people, thus you really couldn't say those places don't qualify. If you had to put a percentage on the number of people who see therapists who don't have any bigger mental issues than most of the rest of us what would that be? I guarantee you it would be more than the percent of people who lie their way into a hospital. How many patients really have no actual mental issue, they just want to talk with someone? I don't see how that's a lot different than an elective medical procedure.

You're moving into an area where the issues and results aren't really quantifiable in any meaningful way. I'm not so sure it is true that you can so to a regular doctor infinite times for a hurt leg and your insurance just keeps paying. I think at some point they would tell you there's nothing more to be done.

Edit: I agree that for rape victims, veterans, and other such things, this should be done, but I'm not so sure that we can't attempt to separate want from need here, just like someone getting rhinoplasty because they smashed their face in a car accident and someone doing it because they want a smaller nose.

*Exaggeration of course, but it is elective for many many many patients.

And tl;dr means "too long; didn't read" a tl;dr version would be a summary.


tl;dr
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - Shaken not stirred gets you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth
12/29/2009 @ 01:14:21 PM
 Quote this comment
Well we just disagree on the number of people who are out there just getting therapy for the heck of it. I don't think you can guarantee that there are more people out doing that then gaming the system for prescription drugs. Also, I have pretty good insurance, but it doesn't cover acupuncture, chiropractors, homeopathic drugs, or power crystal clinics. I don't see how that relates at all.

The law doesn't say that everyone gets free therapy as much as they want. It just makes a visit with a psychologist/psychiatrist the equivalent of a visit to a different medical specialty. You are still subject to the same deductibles and copays that you would pay otherwise. It just says you can't charge a $10 copay for a clinic visit and a $50 copay on a psych visit, and limit the number of psych visits to 10 per year. It's basically saying that PTSD is just as much a chronic, treatable medical condition as diabetes is, and shouldn't be subject to different levels of payment for the appropriate care of said medical condition.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i
12/29/2009 @ 01:47:30 PM
 Quote this comment
I'd be more-or-less fine with saying PTSD is just as much a chronic, treatable medical condition as diabetes is, though you can actually test for diabetes, and test if treatment is working, but they could have just said that then. There are mental issues that are as big a deal as physical, no doubt, I just fear this is another overly broad rule. (Not to mention meddling in something I'm not so convinced they should have any say in anyway.)

My points about acupuncture were unrelated, I only brought up power crystal clinics because you're now talking about an area of health where everything is, almost by definition, a placebo effect, so if someone were to start selling some mental health elixir, and many people claimed it helped them, why not cover that too? (I'm not generally a fan of a slippery slope argument, but my concern would be that it's not not much of a slope to that point at all in terms of rule making.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - I believe virtually everything I read.
12/29/2009 @ 01:52:44 PM
 Quote this comment
And admittedly my whole argument hinges on the fact that a large percentage of people are seeing a therapist when they don't actually have any sort of condition, which might not be the case, though I do think there need be some acknowledgment of want vs need.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 12/29/2009 1:53:51 pm
jon.jpgJon - many posts
01/02/2010 @ 08:53:23 AM
 Quote this comment
Micah Wrote - 12/29/2009 @ 10:19:43 AM

Also, because I deem it noteworthy, the Mental Health Parity Act officially goes into effect on January 1, after 12 years of sitting in congress. Basically it forces insurance companies to treat mental health visits the same as physical health visits, by eliminating restrictions on number of visits and higher copays. This comes with an almost unnoticeable increase in premiums, according to the CBO. This will save people who need it the most thousands of dollars.


Since I deem it noteworthy, I'll mention that back in college I did a project on this topic for my Health Economics class. I might still have the powerpoint on an old computer. I don't remember the numbers of course, but I remember looking at things like the number of work hours lost due to depression, etc. and it seemed like, economically speaking, it was a pretty good "win" for society as a whole to start treating mental illnesses just like other illnesses. Not to mention the non-economic benefits this approach could bring.

Anyway, it's of note that the bill carries the names of former Senators Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) as they were sponsors of the original bill back in 1996. (Technically Domenici was the sponsor and Wellstone was one of the original co-sponsors, just in case someone wanted to correct me on that.)

I won't pretend that I'm an expert on the bill/law, but I know a bit, and from that, I am happy to see it become a reality.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.