It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Admin Rule Forces Hospitals, Doctors Accepting Federal Funds to .......

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Coupla questions:

1. Generally speaking, how is it that we keep hearing that States and so forth should be independent, but they can't live without Federal handouts?

2. Taking Federal funds means following Federal laws and requirements. Why is this even a question?




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MysterX

How can it be the land of the free if everything is mandated?

Maybe you and I have a different idea of what free means? You think it means you don't have to pay for it and I think it means I get to make a choice about it.


You are free to make a choice over who is elected aren't you? Isn't that what delivering 'democracy to the Middle East' at the sharp end of a few thousand cruise missiles was supposed to be all about?

You are free to enjoy the rights and benefits afforded to each citizen under the US constitution aren't you?

Religious and political difference of opinion is irrelavent...the law is the law.

If you don't like your political systems, you are also free to attempt to overhaul or change it.

Freedom doesn't include the right to choose who to and who not to treat because that treatmenat doesn't jive with your personal philosophical views if you are receive federal money.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Health care isn't a right.

Actually there are conscience laws on the books that do protect doctors and allow them to opt out of performing treatments.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And actually there is precedent for the courts to throw this out. The SCOTUS overturned the Medicaid expansion mandate in the law. The states do not have to accept the funds so they shouldn't have to accept mandates attached.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You haven't been paying attention. 'Taking federal funds' is not what you make it out to sound like.

I will repeat.

The federal funds you speak of are simply payments to the hospital for services they have performed on patients using medicare,medicaid,obamacare etc. The hospitals treat these people, they should get paid. It's not a handout.

The hospitals are forced to accept these forms of insurance.

Then the government uses the fact that hospitals MUST accept these forms of insurance to then say COMPLY or we won't pay you for the services you've already performed on people using insurance we MADE you accept.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

And actually there is precedent for the courts to throw this out. The SCOTUS overturned the Medicaid expansion mandate in the law. The states do not have to accept the funds so they shouldn't have to accept mandates attached.


Can you be more specific about what you're referring to with the highlighted term? What's "this"?

Yes, the Supreme Court has many many decisions lately, including the one that says that States can't enforce discrimination in public laws (remember Obergefell?).

States do not have to accept Federal funds, but if they do (and they will), they should follow Federal requirements and guidelines, one of which is, in this case, non-discrimination.

edit on 15-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I must admit that if I was in need of a medical procedure, I would prefer to have it done by a doctor who wanted to help me...NOT one that was mandated to do it or else! Egad!



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MysterX

Health care isn't a right.

Actually there are conscience laws on the books that do protect doctors and allow them to opt out of performing treatments.


Health care is a legal right if that citizen's is paying his or her insurance and taxes.

Otherwise it becomes an insurance based fraud, taking premiums and refusing to provide the services insured against, based on nothing more than a moral or religious standing or opinion is illegal, and essentially fraud.

As i say, create your own, non-federal funded health care services and do what you like and don't do what you don't like.

But let's be honest...you like the federal money more than you don't like treating those who offend your beliefs, and will winge and whine with outstretched arms for the federal cash.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not discriminatory. No one at those places is allowed to have those procedures. If you want them, you find a place that offers them.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

Taking Federal funds is taking Federal funds. Of any kind, sort, type, demarcation or description.

If any public entity, State, county, city, or any private entity, doesn't follow Federal law they won't receive Federal funds even in the form of payments.

You seem to be a bit confused yourself. No one is talking about "handouts" (aside from, of course, States and other entitiies whining that they should get Federal money without following Federal laws.)

If hospitals don't want to provide services to the public they should offer their services as a private club. If they want to serve the public, they follow the laws, all of the laws, that protect ALL of the public.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not discriminatory. No one at those places is allowed to have those procedures. If you want them, you find a place that offers them.


And if a facility wants the People's largesse in terms of Federal funds, they will provide services that benefit ALL of the People.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

You twist everything.

My wife has been a nurse for the past 11 years so this hits home for me.

Did you know that Medicaid and Medicare have the right to refuse payment if the hospital isn't rated a certain amount of pts. on a survey by the patient for their treatment???

Didn't like your nurse? Payment withheld
Didn't like your bed? Payment withheld
Didn't like the food? Low rating...payment withheld.

All the while forcing the hospitals to accept the patient with this insurance in the first place.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MysterX

Health care isn't a right.

Actually there are conscience laws on the books that do protect doctors and allow them to opt out of performing treatments.


Health care is a legal right if that citizen's is paying his or her insurance and taxes.

Otherwise it becomes an insurance based fraud, taking premiums and refusing to provide the services insured against, based on nothing more than a moral or religious standing or opinion is illegal, and essentially fraud.

As i say, create your own, non-federal funded health care services and do what you like and don't do what you don't like.

But let's be honest...you like the federal money more than you don't like treating those who offend your beliefs, and will winge and whine with outstretched arms for the federal cash.


Not all places offer all services. Is it discriminatory of my GP not to offer a full range of services? He doesn't treat my migraines for example. I have to go see a neurologist for that. Are you trying to tell me that my GP is discriminating against me by NOT offering treat them? Similarly I see an OB/GYN for my yearly feminine things ... again, is my GP discriminating for NOT offering those services?



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just wow



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just wow


Believe me, the feeling is mutual.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I'm done with the socialists. It's a beautiful day here, heading out.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
I'm done with the socialists. It's a beautiful day here, heading out.


Taa.

Be careful not to drive on any Socialist roads, in any car made safer by socialist-mandated standards, while you're enjoying the day!




posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Can someone provide the actual text from the rule that says hospitals who didn't provide sexual reassignment surgery now have to do so? Or the text that says that hospitals who didn't provide abortions now have to do so? Cuz I just can't see that anywhere in any actual texts from the government.

What I DO see is text saying that if a hospital provides services for one group, they must provide those same services to all groups. In other words, if you provide nose jobs for straight, cisgender people, you must provide nose jobs for transgender people too. Or, if you provide abortions for white people, you have to provide abortions for black people too.

Show me where I'm wrong please and I will apologize.



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Perhaps we should step aside from Breitbart propaganda and read the actual statement from HHS: Summary: Final Rule Implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act


edit on 15-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 15 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Great minds.


What's left of mine, anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join