I'm AstralAdvent and i condone the use of page 3

4/13/2011 1:01:23 PM

Quote :

"“Effective, Jan 1, 2011, over the counter medicines and drugs do require a prescription from a qualified healthcare provider. “"

does this have to be a bona fide physician?

4/13/2011 1:03:11 PM

i believe it's worded that way to allow for PAs, NPs who also have script privileges.

Quote :

"i don't agree that people should be able to buy advil with non-taxed income. and by requiring the prescription, it does, in a round about way, eliminate people getting some OTC meds that are more of a one-off nature (i.e. some sudafed for the sniffles you got last night) without completely eliminating OTC from the program."

Quote :

"would you have been any less pissed if they just put in the bill "no more otc period?""

Actually yes. At least that doesn't add end-to-end administrative burden, and thus costs that ultimately get passed back on to the consumer, which is completely counter to the goal of the Affordable Care Act. That's, yet again, my biggest beef. But keep referring back to my initial rant if it makes your argument easier...

[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2011 1:15:53 PM

silly me referring back to the original post in a thread you made when addressing you in the thread

4/13/2011 1:52:04 PM

ITT we find out that goldielox is a cunt.

4/13/2011 1:59:06 PM

lol - the malice...it burns!

[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 2:09 PM. Reason : maybe i can get some OTC salve for that?]

4/13/2011 2:07:58 PM

Quote :

"does this have to be a bona fide physician?"

pharmacist can do it too.

4/13/2011 2:18:25 PM

Quote :

"The privatized system didn't work. It's been tried twice, and, contrary to republican babble about competition lowering prices, this NEVER HAPPENS."

What part of Medicare makes you think our healthcare system has been privatized? We have the worst of both worlds. You've got Congress restricting the supply of doctors and states demanding that insurance pay for certain things. That's not a free-market, buddy.

4/13/2011 2:50:53 PM

Damn I did not realize this provision was part of the new law. I too have used my FSA for years to close the gap between what I funded my account with and how much I spent on co-pays, out of pockets expenses, etc.

I was looking at some of my recent receipts from CVS and realized that the stuff that used to be FSA eligible like Advil or cold medicine was not listed at the bottom where they normally show the FSA $ total. What a crock of bullshit.



[Edited on April 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : df]

4/13/2011 2:52:32 PM

The government drives up healthcare costs with subsidies, then lets you write off certain healthcare expenses - sometimes, or maybe not at all. What a deal (read: gotcha bitches!)

4/13/2011 3:11:26 PM

4/16/2011 12:44:46 AM

Quote :

"This issue is not a political issue but one of government forced inefficiency. FSA was designed to encourage people to take responsibility for their own out of pocket expenses. Seemed to be one of the few good government programs out there. Let's not discount the fact that the changes in FSA would raise the cost for doctors and insurance companies to prescribe OTC medicine(s). Man hours would need to be allocated for paperwork processing. This only adds more unneeded cost to healthcare. "

FSAs were designed to pad the bottom line of insurance companies in a way that makes YOU feel dumb for not spending the money.

Now it’s a way to hide the increased cost of the healthcare reform by deterring people from using their FSAs.

4/16/2011 1:22:54 AM

Quote :

"^amen. Working in the healthcare industry, I hate insurance companies with a passion."

You know what's even worse?

1- Whiny fuckers who go to the doctor every time their throat hurts.

2- The he never-ending supply of illegal immigrants lined up in the ER with no intent of paying their bills, and obviously not giving a shit about their "credit". Not to mention all the illegal women squirting out their 8th child in the maternity ward upstairs.

3- The tort system in most states, and this coming from a lawyer.

4- The endless amount of worms out there milking insurance companies of all sorts with bogus or exaggerated claims.


If anything, I pity insurance companies for being the scapegoat for all those parasites feeding off the system. But hey, I guess its a lot easier to blame the evil company and its heartless pursuit of profit.

4/16/2011 11:39:47 AM

Quote :

"I guess its a lot easier to blame the evil company and its heartless pursuit of profit."

It's even easier to blame the president.

4/16/2011 11:43:40 AM

^ quite true.

Well, at least as easy.

4/16/2011 11:44:24 AM

4/16/2011 11:51:14 AM

Quote :

"It's a right. To say otherwise is ignorant and incredibly short sighted."

I guess I fail to see where in the Constitution it says you have the right to the product of another man's labour without paying him for it. Sorry, healthcare is not a right.

4/16/2011 2:28:59 PM

the Constitution doesn't say anything about public education, fire protection or roads and highways either.

4/16/2011 2:40:50 PM

I cancelled my dental insurance because a checkup was cheaper than 6 mos of insurance premiums

4/16/2011 2:49:32 PM

Quote :

"the Constitution doesn't say anything about public education, fire protection or roads and highways either."

Yes, and the federal government provides none of those things. It certainly intervenes though, in that it taxes the hell out of the state and people, pisses away the money, and gives the people back scraps, if anything.

Tell us what you think a right is. Is food a right? Then the federal government should be in charge of growing and distributing food, shouldn't it?

4/16/2011 2:55:54 PM

i wasn't talking about whether or not the federal govt provides it, or even whether or not it's a right. it's someone else's labor that we routinely don't directly pay for. it happens all the time, i'm just pointing out the selective outrage

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 3:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2011 3:03:07 PM

I'm so glad that our Constitution protects our speech, but when it comes to cancer, we're on our own.

4/16/2011 3:07:37 PM

^^^This guy, complains about everything, but we need needs the services he will use them....oh, the GOP wants to cut those services, I hope you get make some money, because if you dont, you gonna be hurting when you become a senior and have to pay out of the ass for everything....I am sure you will be complaining then too.

Make sure you have good insurance before you get Joie preggers, dont leech off the taxpayer funding programs....dont have one of those plans that only do pay for if you get your arm cut off.....

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : w]

4/16/2011 3:11:06 PM

You're mistaking me for another user, first of all.

You never have a right to someone else's labor or property, because rights are negative in nature - you have a right from things. Whenever folks like you do manage to implement your ideas, we end up with lower quality service and exploding prices. Not everyone gets top notch healthcare, no matter how unfair it seems. There's only so much to go around - if that weren't the case, there'd be no use in discussing any of this.

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 3:17:53 PM

Quote :

"rights are negative in nature - you have a right from things."

I don't really post on TWW anymore, but I figured I'd stick my head in real quick and call this bullshit out. Did you just make this shit up?

4/16/2011 5:47:08 PM

why on earth has this not been moved to the soapbox?

4/16/2011 5:53:31 PM

There's potential for lulz?

4/16/2011 6:05:11 PM

Quote :

"I'm so glad that our Constitution protects our speech, but when it comes to cancer, we're on our own."

what the fuck kind of logic is this?

eye rolls, really???

Free speech requires nothing from anyone. You sure as fuck can't say the same for cancer treatment.

But sure, we have a right to have people become doctors and lab techs and researchers, and have all the fruits of their labor given to us without personally fronting a dime.


You know what's even more fundamentally important than health care?

Food and shelter.

I suppose we should have a right to those as well. And I'm not talking about the right to pursue them, but the right to have it given to us.

That being the case, I guess we are violating the rights of those homeless people out there.

Well fuck, they should file suit. I'm sure the Supreme Court would love to hear that one.




[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM. Reason : x]

4/16/2011 6:34:17 PM

THE POLITICIAN I'VE NEVER MET YET WORSHIP, IS BETTER THAN THE POLITICIAN YOU'VE NEVER MET YET WORSHIP

4/16/2011 6:37:59 PM

4/16/2011 6:43:58 PM

Quote :

"Free speech requires nothing from anyone. You sure as fuck can't say the same for cancer treatment. "

Free speech isn't necessary for a person's survival.

Quote :

"But sure, we have a right to have people become doctors and lab techs and researchers, and have all the fruits of their labor given to us without personally fronting a dime."

If we had universal health care, everyone would be "fronting a dime." And logistically from an insurance side it makes sense to insure everyone than having separate companies divide the pool up...

Quote :

"Food and shelter. I suppose we should have a right to those as well. And I'm not talking about the right to pursue them, but the right to have it given to us."

Obviously you haven't heard of food stamps or subsidized living...

Quote :

"That being the case, I guess we are violating the rights of those homeless people out there."

Most homeless people have aid available to them, but unfortunately they have mental issues that prevent them from successfully seeking help (at the expense of tax payers too!), and since you can't force someone into a hospital unless they are a danger to them or to others, they are left on the street.

But hey, keep on sipping on some of that FNC kool aid. Rarely do you ever hear of them bashing food stamps or subsidized living and rarely do you hear anyone bitch about it either.

4/16/2011 7:47:45 PM

Didn't the government initially get involved in the health care industry because of the skyrocketing inflation of health costs?

4/16/2011 8:29:40 PM

^ ^ i love the presumptuousness, condescension, and cliche.

I read cnn far more than fox news. And I don't worship hannity or glenn beck, nor riley, mike church, bortz, or any other conservative radio/tv jockey your feeble mind might instantaneously dismiss.

In fact, in many ways, particularly over social issues, I am very liberal.

But all that aside, here, in a short list, is the stupidity of your arguments (most of which are apples and oranges):


1- survival is irrelevant, especially in the context of our "rights" in the constitution. The constitution doesn't require anyone to take an action to grant another their "rights". It is all about the government refraining from violating those rights it enumerates.

2- are you serious??? poor people don't pay taxes (at least no more than a completely inconsequential amount). , they will be benefiting from a system they don't meaningfully contribute to. And btw, I have lived and worked in england, france, and spain and been a part of those glorious health care systems. They were a fucking joke.

3- food stamps and subsidized living are not rights, particularly in a universal sense. They are programs designed to benefit a designated group within our populace, and you are not entitled to them simply from the act of being born in the united states (as is with EVERY OTHER RIGHT IN OUR CONSTITUTION)

4- I will wager that I have met more homeless than you have, and although some have "mental issues", it is a trait that is far from all encompassing. But that is neither here no there. Yes, they do have numerous programs they can seek out. But they are not a RIGHT. Every day, soup kitchens and shelters turn away homeless people. It does not mean they can then sue the government, agencies, etc. because they were rejected. THEY DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THOSE SERVICES.









[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 8:40 PM. Reason : x]

4/16/2011 8:35:59 PM

Fuck this noise in my chit chat. But I agree with ^ guy.

4/16/2011 8:51:25 PM

Quote :

"The constitution doesn't require anyone to take an action to grant another their "rights"."

WRONG!

Right to a speedy trial, rights to hearings - due process, a lawyer, etc... the constitution absolutely requires people to take action to grant another their rights.

Quote :

"food stamps and subsidized living are not rights, particularly in a universal sense. They are programs designed to benefit a designated group within our populace, and you are not entitled to them simply from the act of being born in the united states (as is with EVERY OTHER RIGHT IN OUR CONSTITUTION)"

You don't think people have a right to receive food stamps and other entitlements after it's been established that they are indeed entitled to them?




[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 9:09 PM. Reason : Yes, the gov't grants entitlements to the rich and the poor all the time.]

4/16/2011 9:04:06 PM

Quote :

"Yes, in the end, there will still be bums and poor people. But that's the reality of life and nature. You can't save everyone. Doing so only wastes resources that could possibly better enhance the world or a civilization which, in retrospect, could provide MORE opportunities and chances to poor people."

I may need this one explained.

We are ultimately going to improve the lives of poor people by not providing them care?

4/16/2011 9:13:47 PM

only read the OP

go to your Nurse at work and have him/her write you the prescriptions. Free and easy

4/16/2011 9:23:56 PM

Quote :

"WRONG"

1- Everything you just mentioned are actions of people acting as AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. What I was referring to were actions of private individuals.

2- Also, as I said, they are not rights. I have worked with all sorts of section 8 housing and others on government assistance (seeing as I am a real estate lawyer) and plenty of poor people get turned down all the time. It is not a right.

Its like a license, those who pass the test designed by the government, get the PRIVILEGE....


But you know, I'm no expert on food stamps..... and maybe there is a federal "entitlement" for those under a certain income to food stamps. But that, again, is pointless in this argument with Merbig. Those rights in our constitution are for everyone, not just the poor. They are natural, so called "god" given rights independent of criteria.


[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM. Reason : c]

4/16/2011 9:38:43 PM

There are only a handful of fundamental rights, and getting food stamps is not one of them. There are basic textual rights, but those are ones that we don't really fuss about claiming as rights (speech, expression, jury trial), just about the extent to which they should be protected.

In general, nontextual fundamental rights are things like the right to vote and the right to marry.

Receiving food stamps is not a constitutional right. It is a statutory right, provided you fit in a certain category, just like the 1968 Fair Housing Act authorizes certain treatment. I didn't waste much time reading your arguments above, so I don't really know what the deal is, but there could of course be an Equal Protection or Due Process claim where some individuals were denied access to statutory privileges and others were not, depending on how that denial happened. So in that case you'd be infringing on a right (EP/DP - 14th Amendment), but it would not be a constitutional right

4/16/2011 9:46:06 PM

^^ It wasn't obvious to me, and private individuals are summonsed to jury duty anyway.

^ I'm not sure I follow... you're talking about 5th amendment protections that are somehow not constitutional rights? I know you said 14th, but whether we're talking about 5th or 14th, doesn't that make it a constitutional right? I'm not trying to be antagonistic I'm just curious because I'm not following your logic.

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 9:46:55 PM

My point is that receiving food stamps is not a right. However, if all white people get food stamps and black people don't, then you are violating the 14th's E.P. clause. Thus, you are being denied your right to E.P. In truth, you could adjust the facts only slightly (or the claim, actually, even with the same facts), and merit a D.P. claim under the 14th (if it was a state/private action) or 5th (if it was a federal act)

It depends on what you guys were arguing about in terms of denial as to whether a right is implicated. As for the 5th, it does not have an E.P. clause, so it wouldn't be implicated, although it does also have a D.P. clause.

So at its root, there is not a protected fundamental right to food stamps. Education is not even a fundamental right. If the state shut down all of the schools tomorrow, that would be legal. Unless, of course, they tried to do so based on discriminatory intent to prevent integration or something, which would trigger the 14th, and that's what would create standing. Of course, it's not really an issue anyway, because the Court has decided that they aren't going to recognize any new fundamental rights or protected classes.

4/16/2011 10:10:28 PM

Quote :

"the Court has decided that they aren't going to recognize any new fundamental rights or protected classes."

Eventually the court may, we don't know that, but that's beside the point... if anyone said foodstamps or universal healthcare or housing or education is a "fundamental" right they would be wrong. But do they have a "right" of access to things the state entitles them to? I think they do.

[Edited on April 16, 2011 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2011 10:16:41 PM

I'm just going based on what the Court has said as to the not recognizing new rights or suspect classes. Of course they could do an about face, but the issue seems to have been settled. If I remember correctly, Rehnquist was pretty explicit about the whole thing, and it's been supported since then. You get rational basis with bite if you're lucky, low level rational basis if you aren't. The door to intermediate and strict scrutiny is closed. If you aren't in, you won't be.

And under those standards, if you couldn't say the reason you were denied food stamps was either as a result of your race/gender/national origin/alienage, or that the denial wasn't wholly arbitrary and potentially vindictive, then as long as the state could prove they had a reasonable reason related to a legitimate purpose for denying you, it would likely pass mustard.

4/16/2011 10:35:44 PM

Yes I understand all that although I disagree with notion that the door will be shut forever... or even for my lifetime honestly. I'm just saying that if you're entitled to something, you have a right to it. Also, you're treating the garden variety rights as if they don't even exist. They do exist, and even if they're only subject to a rational basis test, the rights are still there.

4/16/2011 10:42:08 PM

Quote :

"1- survival is irrelevant, especially in the context of our "rights" in the constitution. The constitution doesn't require anyone to take an action to grant another their "rights". It is all about the government refraining from violating those rights it enumerates."

terpball already hit this pretty good.

But to continue, universal health care doesn't mean that doctors aren't being paid, that they are doing something for nothing. I think Canada's method is the way to go. Doctors are still private, yet they get paid by the government or the person's own medical coverage.

Quote :

"2- are you serious??? poor people don't pay taxes (at least no more than a completely inconsequential amount). , they will be benefiting from a system they don't meaningfully contribute to. And btw, I have lived and worked in england, france, and spain and been a part of those glorious health care systems. They were a fucking joke. "

How much they contribute is irrelevant. Using your logic, Bill Gates should get the most. It's completely backwards... The people who don't need it should be the ones to get it, as they contribute the most...

Quote :

"3- food stamps and subsidized living are not rights, particularly in a universal sense. They are programs designed to benefit a designated group within our populace, and you are not entitled to them simply from the act of being born in the united states (as is with EVERY OTHER RIGHT IN OUR CONSTITUTION)"

I never said they were rights... I said that they are programs that are available from our government that promotes the general welfare of our entire population...

Quote :

"4- I will wager that I have met more homeless than you have, and although some have "mental issues", it is a trait that is far from all encompassing."

I doubt you have... But I guess we need to establish what "homeless" is. I consider homeless in this sense to be someone who is actually living on the street. Someone who is in something like a Church program that houses people who currently don't have homes don't count in my book (although they are often included in statistics). Considering that I used to volunteer my time with the Interfaith Hospitality Network in Middle School and HS, I have met a lot of people who were previously homeless.

However, people who are physically and mentally "fit" are able to seek out help from organizations to help them get back on their feet, as well as take advantage of government programs (a big issue with a lot of government programs is that they require an address for the beneficiary). These people are generally temporarily homeless. However, those who have mental illnesses stay homeless for years.

You can't tell me that the homeless asian guy on Western/Gorman Street just loves standing their and babbling all day. The dude is obviously sick...

Quote :

"Yes, they do have numerous programs they can seek out. But they are not a RIGHT. Every day, soup kitchens and shelters turn away homeless people. It does not mean they can then sue the government, agencies, etc. because they were rejected. THEY DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO THOSE SERVICES."

First of all, I don't know why you keep saying that they sue the government. I never said anyone can successfully sue the government.

What I am saying is that universal health care should be a program that we have. IMO, I don't see how we can be considered a first world country when we have a second world health care system.

4/16/2011 11:28:16 PM

When you look at our budget, you've gotta wonder how long we will be a first world country. If you met an individual that had to take out 15,000 in debt every year to survive, already had 150,000 in outstanding debt, anticipated that their costs would continue to rise, and had absolutely no workable plan to escape that cycle, would you say that person is doing well and would be doing well in the future?

In any case, we'd be much better served by getting the government out of many healthcare and health insurance sectors. We have to shed this model where employers provide their employees with health benefits. It's awful, distorts the market, and is the primary reason that costs are going up and overall health is going down. It just will require sweeping tax changes, and politicians aren't looking to get their hands dirty with that right now.

4/17/2011 3:40:39 PM

So, you think costs would go down if the employers didnt provide it? Are you on crack? Then everyone will go to the ER and guess who will pay the bill........it would be much much worse.....you should consider running for the House in a Tea Party strong district.....

4/17/2011 3:53:44 PM

I would agree with you on basic health services that insurance distorts prices. But on specialty treatment, like cancer treatment, and many life saving surgeries, I don't see how getting rid of employer based health indurance would make those services attainable to everyone. It may lower prices, but considering that many illnesses take people out of work, it's not feasible to do away with employer based health insurance.

4/17/2011 3:57:45 PM

I think the idea he is suggesting there is that employers stop providing insurance, but instead give a commensurate bump in pay so that people go buy their own insurance. That way people would have a better idea of how much their insurance really costs and how much coverage they really need.

Employer-sponsored health coverage began during WWII the 1940s when the government limited how much companies could raise wages as a way of controlling inflation. To make up for that, companies could expand the benefits they offered. So they did and the model has remained in place, partly because the IRS does not view health benefits as taxable income.

4/17/2011 4:17:34 PM

That would be more expensive for employers. If employer based health care ended, I could see some salaried people getting raises, but I don't see wage earners getting shit.

Considering that at the place I work at, we pay $55 a month. If that were put into my pay a month, I would end up paying about double what I'm paying now.

And maybe rates for individuals would fall from the current individual prices, but it sure as hell wouldn't be close to $55/month.

4/17/2011 4:38:29 PM