Oklahoma Rep. Mike Ritze moves for nullification of ObamaCare

i wonder if any of you can/would explain this conundrum to me.

Public hospitals (notice not private) are primarily funded via our tax dollars.
why is it then, that their budgets are continuously cut (year after year after decade after decade) for "healthcare expenses" all the while increasing budgets for "administrative costs, R&D, (research/development), study groups, malpractice insurance and increased staff that provide increasingly less "healthcare" ??

our taxes keep increasing, our contributions keep increasing, yet, they (hospitals) cannot/do not seem to provide the level of care that they did 20yrs ago.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by logican

 

We're talking about the FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND HOW THESE THINGS ARE DECIDED in MY country...not yours.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

It's not YOUR country, it's OURS. And we've voted to get rid of many of the travesties under the recent model. The supreme court has even chimed in. Get it!?!?

reply to post by AkumaStreak
fyi, the poster being responded to is not an American or a citizen of this/our country.

it might be OUR world but it is not OUR country to all posters on these boards.
the post is proper regardless of your insane assumption.
got any comment that's actually relevant to the topic ??

I'm from Oklahoma and I fully support ANY bill that separates Federal power from State power.

Its as simple as that is how this country was designed to function. Why do so few people understand that?

The OP nailed it. This is a Republic, not this brained washed image of a single entity with full like mindedness.
It is in our country's design to function differently from one another. If you don't like the laws move to a state that fits your needs and wishes. Simple as that.

It was NEVER supposed to end up the minority ruling over the majority.


When I was in my late teens and early 20's I was a worthless piece of turd. I couldn't hold a job, didn't care to either. I had been spoiled in life and expected everyone to bail me out.

It got old fast. I got tired of being poor and having no means to take care of myself.

So me, being my high school drop out self with a GED and unable to muster the conviction to complete college hired on at a major, well known, corporation at 8$ an hour in a extremely bottom level position..

Was I making the bank? Heck no, I was still broke and having to bum off mommy. But I got my foot in. I did the crap work and enjoyed making that 8$ an hour because my company gave me health care and retirement.

I was grateful. A rare feeling for most people these days...

Now, over seven years later, I have been in management for nearly four years now making a very fair salary. Would I like more? Sure. Do I feel like I deserve more? No. If i get more then obviously someone felt like I earned it and Ill be content with that.

Im content with myself and what I have made of my self. I am only 28 and have been at the wheel of multi million dollar operations for some time... And its all thanks to...

NOT THE F*****G GOVERNMENT.

I never asked for a dime, nickel, or cent. I didnt even ask them for the time of the day. It was MY problem. It was MY RESPONSIBILITY to EARN my healthcare coverage. To EARN my pay. I have worked for everything I have and the government cant lay claim to any of it.

Didnt need you government, still dont. People just need the will and drive to pick themselves up, stop feeling sorry for themselves and FIX their situation.

THATS the American dream. You EARN prosperity, it cannot be given. To be given it has to be taken.

So in short..

If you want healthcare go get a damn job. Job doesnt offer it? Get a better job.
Sorry that life is "too hard" for what seems to be half of America.

So in closing, screw you government. Screw you socialist. Screw you lazy wastes of flesh that drown in self sorrow instead of crawling out of the self made hole your in like the rest of people who are just happy having a job.

I will EARN my healthcare. And I am glad that I am in a state that will let me retain my right to earn it.

You socialist abominations have ROBBED so many Americans of DRIVE.

Why earn anything? Why work hard and earn that promotion?
Mommy Government will be there to provide for you.

You blood suckers make me sick.
Screw this healthcare. Screw the Federal mandates.
And for fun, screw union labor, enjoy sleeping in your own feces in Detroit.
Thats what handouts earn you.

So take your socialistic laws being forced on the states and shove em.

If you want universal health care... Then move somewhere that has it, quit trying to dump your worthlessness on the rest of us.

So proud to be in a state with common sense people that are willing to stand up for their state and say; "No, we know whats best for us and WE will decide!"
Tired of living in a society where I am supposed to be more upset with what a rich man does with his money than what the government does with MINE.


/rantoff

Oklahoma was one of the 25 states that filed federal lawsuits in 2011 challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. As readers may remember, Virginia and Florida also filed complaints with Florida taking the lead.

From the OP link to The New American

If all of the 25 states were to (by statute or citizen vote) nullify the PPACA, do you think that would send a message to the Feds? I am not (necessarily or un-necessarily) talking succession from the Union. I am speaking of nullifying the law for the state.

If that were to happen and the Feds didn't like it, would succession be forced?

If that were to happen, would half the United States, under the banner of the Federal Government and the other half have a war (not for a cause such as stating under law that one man doesn't have capacity to own another man based on the color of his skin) to mandate that everyone either be on the Fed's teat (expanded medicare/medicaid) or be forced to buy a service (insurance is a financial service based on risk and it's transferrence) from private for profit companies (including some that have already recieved bailouts...AIG to name one)? Can you see having to fight your fellow countrymen for this (and not getting actual reforms to actual healthcare issues)?

I submit that that would be stupid.

It gives me hope to hear that at least one states representative is looking after the rights of his state and the citizens of his state.

By the way, as an off topic aside (and my way to deny ignorance today), in a capitalistic free market system the provider of a service or a product sets the price of said service or product. This means that healthcare providers set the price for their services rendered. This goes for FOR-PROFIT and NOT-FOR-PROFIT entities.

Medicare/Medicaid related healthcare reimbursement rates are agreed upon as a contract between the medicaid/medicare systems and the provider of the service. They are much lower than the provider's rates that they charge people who are not a member of medicaid/medicare. This type of services makes a provider less potential profit.

People who pay cash are usually charged a providers normal rate. They are also depending on the provider, usually afforded a small discount because they are paying cash and there is no added cost administratively to send a universal insurance claim form out. (UB form is for hospitals and HCFA is for other providers ie Doctor's services, lab charges, radiological procedures, surgical procedures, dme, therapy charges, etc...)

Private health-insurance policies (including group and individual policies, and to the same extent benefit plans governed by ERISA) have cost savings built in to protect profit and reserves. One regards "usual, customary and reasonable" charges. This method is used if the provider isn't party to some Provider Network/discount program (PPO, EPO, HMO etc...) contract that the insurance company/plan is a party.

I know it to be a fact that numerous claims made to private carriers are inflated as compared to medicare/medicaid and cash paying customers.

To my knowlege. there is no law in the land that says what a healthcare provider can charge for their expertise or that they have to charge. There is no law in the land that states that a healthcare provider has to be a party to any contract that limits their charges.

reply to post by pwndnewb
one can only hope such a message would be well received

in an effort to affirm your statements, i know beyond any doubt that some providers charge different prices dependant on the type of insurance offered.

group plans=fee #1, private plans=fee #2, auto ins.=fee #3, WC=fee #4
and private pay got a rate all their own and less than all of the above.

this is not an uncommon practice in any medical setting.
and just for fun, only one of those insurance types listed above had the highest rate attached, any idea which "form" of insurance that was ??

reply to post by Honor93


I would hope that the federal government would take it to keep out of my choices and actually address the problems in the system instead of the money grab that is the PPACA.

For S&G fun, I would have to say that it would be group health insurance (largest pool and therefore greatest potential profit). Next would be auto insurance ( takes some time to be settled and may go to court). Followed by Private Insurance. Then worker's compensation (usually state regulated in a state pool, so I would think that there would be cost containment provisions). Then cash paid. Then medicare/medicaid. Let me know if I have it?

My apologies to Valhall for side-tracking the thread. I would like to thank her for the thought provoking thread.

Originally posted by pwndnewb

Oklahoma was one of the 25 states that filed federal lawsuits in 2011 challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare. As readers may remember, Virginia and Florida also filed complaints with Florida taking the lead.

From the OP link to The New American

If all of the 25 states were to (by statute or citizen vote) nullify the PPACA, do you think that would send a message to the Feds? I am not (necessarily or un-necessarily) talking succession from the Union. I am speaking of nullifying the law for the state.

If that were to happen and the Feds didn't like it, would succession be forced?

If that were to happen, would half the United States, under the banner of the Federal Government and the other half have a war (not for a cause such as stating under law that one man doesn't have capacity to own another man based on the color of his skin) to mandate that everyone either be on the Fed's teat (expanded medicare/medicaid) or be forced to buy a service (insurance is a financial service based on risk and it's transferrence) from private for profit companies (including some that have already recieved bailouts...AIG to name one)? Can you see having to fight your fellow countrymen for this (and not getting actual reforms to actual healthcare issues)?

If you don't mind me snipping your post for brevity I'd like to respond to this. War is not required, nor would be wanted, but most likely inevitable. I'll explain but first explore what is happening.

The Arizona initiative with over 300,000 signatures and will be voted on their November ballot is a stroke of genius. It is the power to opt out of ANY federal law either by initiative (petition) or state legislative powers naming a federal law unconstitutional. Why do I think this is a stroke of genius?

Well, first the predictions are that there is a good chance this will pass to law. Why? Because it does not contain the word "secession" while being secession in all other forms. "Seceding" scares the begeebers out of some people...especially older folks dependent on the social security checks they were garanteed and worked toward all their lives. But to frame as the people voting to obtain the power to "opt out" of any federal law that unconstitutionally encroaches on state and citizen rights is very palatable....to just about everyone.

What will happen next? The Supreme Court will rule the DEMOCRATICALLY VOTED LAW unconstitutional. There is no better way to move the general populace of a state toward accepting secession than to have their DEMOCRATIC VOTE for the power to say NO be taken from them by the federal government. At that point you find yourself in the old adage "No means no". My oppressor cannot state I do not have the right to say no.

Now, to the talk of "would there be war". As I said there must not NECESSARILY be, but it would probably be inevitable.

Let's take the initiation of the first Civil War. There were months of warnings by the seceded state of South Carolina for U.S. federal troops (now viewed as occupying forces in a sovereign confederacy) to remove themselves from that state's property, specifically forts. They would not comply. As we are well aware the proper maneuvers for having forces in place in a sovereign country is to first open lines of diplomacy and negotiate those troops' presence. The US government chose not to act with diplomacy and instead continue to occupy what was now foreign soil.

Even up to the last minute Brig. General Beauregard was offering unconditional surrender to avoid initiating bloodshed in order to remove the federal occupying troops from Forts Moultrie and Sumter as well as Castle Pinckney. His offer was refused and the first official military shot was fired in order to take the fort and remove the federal troops.

I don't see the federal government having anymore sense in round two. It most likely would come to blows. But I take issue with your statement that no change would be affected by secession of numerous states. I believe there would be tremendous change. Permanent change.

Originally posted by AkumaStreak

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by logican

 

We're talking about the FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND HOW THESE THINGS ARE DECIDED in MY country...not yours.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

It's not YOUR country, it's OURS. And we've voted to get rid of many of the travesties under the recent model. The supreme court has even chimed in. Get it!?!?

edit on 7/11/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)

Yes, it is MY country. It's also OUR country. Oklahoma is MY state. It's also other Oklahomans' state. I can speak in the possessive because I have a vested interest and standing to do so. I shall continue to use that language.

Originally posted by pwndnewb
reply to post by Honor93

 

I would hope that the federal government would take it to keep out of my choices and actually address the problems in the system instead of the money grab that is the PPACA.

For S&G fun, I would have to say that it would be group health insurance (largest pool and therefore greatest potential profit). Next would be auto insurance ( takes some time to be settled and may go to court). Followed by Private Insurance. Then worker's compensation (usually state regulated in a state pool, so I would think that there would be cost containment provisions). Then cash paid. Then medicare/medicaid. Let me know if I have it?

My apologies to Valhall for side-tracking the thread. I would like to thank her for the thought provoking thread.

really ???
i never expected such an answer from you of all people ... thanks for playing along

just goes to show, even the "providers", often, don't know for sure what is going on at the front desk.
check this out ... top fee = WC insurance ... deducted/negotiated most amount of procedures
next in line = auto insurers ... second in most deducted/negotiated amount of procedures
then = private insurers (PPO & such) ... usually pays at 80% of charges w/o question
next = CASH clients cause the payments from above generally equalled the cash rate
last = group (MC/Medicaid) most reduced amounts paid for services rendered.

i was hoping to say "close" but in this case it's more like "no cigar for you"
the reality is closer to the above and here's why ... WC is charged the most because they negotiate hardest.

Auto insurers come in second because they generally pay only 80% of charges submitted, however, due to the "legal constraints" of most auto cases, you are correct that the delay in payment could influence the discrepancy in fees. (often, at the result of the legal issue, providers usually get the other 20% via LOP)

Private comes next because they often only pay at a 70% rate of charges submitted.
(occasionally clients will have secondary ins and many billers consider this a "bonus" for the provider)

cash clients pay for service at the rate "generally" received from the insurances listed above.
lastly = group (MC/Medicaid) IF you are lucky enough to have a provider that accepts it because the payments are sooooo low-balled for the service received.
Also, with "group" insurance, billers are regionally limited on the fee they are permitted to charge, even though they seldom receive 80% of the reduced rates they are forced to charge.

numerically, (and 20yrs ago) here's an example for a standard service provided at a therapy clinic.
1 hr service - psyche and physical rehab services.
WC - $105
Auto - $90
Priv. - $80
Cash - $60
MC/Medicaid - refused upon request.

hard to believe, huh ??
examples ... WC (UC of $35) standard reduction renders pmt = $70
(UC = usual and customary - which means they'll pay the "average" for service, not the fee charged)

Auto - not too many UC reductions - maybe $10-15 but payment is 80%(UC) = $60
Priv. - dependant on coverage (some 80%, some 70%, some 90% UC) = $55
then of course the cash remains the same but as you can see, the "payment" levels out regardless of the insurance or method used. so, star for you

ETA: DITTO - what he/she said ...

My apologies to Valhall for side-tracking the thread. I would like to thank her for the thought provoking thread.

thanks for being a good sport along the way !!

Originally posted by Valhall
And to further that this is not a "party politic" issue (and that is why I do NOT agree with the moderator decision to move this thread to the political forum. I had originally posted it in the civil unrest forum) I want to say I felt the same way and remain feeling the way I do about the PATRIOT Act. It was a usurpation of States' rights. This is as well.

--sigh--

All this "noise" and manufactured indignation regarding the "Affordable Care Act" (AKA Obamacare) is getting rather tedious on all fronts -- especially when "States' rights" are inserted as the rationale for dissent.

Please. It just feels like more and more ring-in-the-nose manipulation as everyone is being told what to think and how nasty to express what they think by the rope attached to your ring, courtesy of the media. And gladly you follow along. The narrative is gerrymandered into manageable silos so that the unproductive clamor of the populace never approaches the real issue.

What is the real issue?

Functionally, there are no "States' rights."

Why?

Your "elected" federal and state representatives do not represent you, and it's been a long time since they did. They represent other interests, you're just the temporary path to provide access to those other interests.

Compared to the sell-out of Congress and State legislatures, bitching about "Obamacare" is like complaining that your pine scented air freshener fell off your rear view mirror after your sports car was rear-ended by a school bus.

So unproductive. So unfocused. So well designed.



For the record...

I'm not opposed to "socialized" health care. But ONLY after the myriad of core problems in our absurdly and artificially expensive health care "system" are corrected.

And... I don't currently have health insurance, nor can I currently afford the viable options even if I were accepted after six years without.

Originally posted by Honor93
i wonder if any of you can/would explain this conundrum to me.

Public hospitals (notice not private) are primarily funded via our tax dollars.
why is it then, that their budgets are continuously cut (year after year after decade after decade) for "healthcare expenses" all the while increasing budgets for "administrative costs, R&D, (research/development), study groups, malpractice insurance and increased staff that provide increasingly less "healthcare" ??

our taxes keep increasing, our contributions keep increasing, yet, they (hospitals) cannot/do not seem to provide the level of care that they did 20yrs ago.

This is a very good point. People want to act like there are masses of folks out there that can't get fundamental health care (note FUNDAMENTAL - NOT EXTREME). Publicly-funded hospital MUSTS, by law, treat you and take life-saving measures. If you can't pay, we already pay for you!

The problem is not solved by socializing for nationalizing health care. The problem is to address tort reform, so that doctors can charge less, and to hold the conglomerates of health care (the hospital corporations) and the pharmaceutical companies to accountability.

You can walk in almost any private-funded hospital (or physican-owned hospital) and you feel like you're walking in the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton. Well, that's sweet for about 30 seconds, but it doesn't do a damned thing to improve the healthcare you get at that facility. Designer lobby chairs and ornate decoratives do not heal you. They make you feel emotionally "neat" for a few minutes as you walk through, but the truth is you need the proper amount of physicians, nurses, radiologists and medical technology and equipment along with required medicines - AT AN AFFORDABLE COST - in order to be treated. You have to stick the cost of the marble floor on top of that, of course, in order to pay for the 30 seconds of opulence.

NONE of the real problems leading to over-inflated health costs are being addressed in the ObamaCare package. That same over-inflated health service is now going to be provided to more to be paid for by fewer.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Didn't you just agree with me? I think you did. The temporary distraction of bitching about other people bitching about a particular bill may throw some off for a few seconds, but I think you actually just agreed with me.

I know I agreed with you.

reply to post by ThermoNuke


And also being from Oklahoma and currently living in Oklahoma while also spending many years in the St. Louis area I would say this is the sentiment of a vast majority of the midwest. For those out of the loop. Thats the area you fly over going from coast to coast. You may not realize it but people do live in these areas and we vote.

Originally posted by Valhall
[If you don't mind me snipping your post for brevity I'd like to respond to this. War is not required, nor would be wanted, but most likely inevitable. I'll explain but first explore what is happening.

The Arizona initiative with over 300,000 signatures and will be voted on their November ballot is a stroke of genius. It is the power to opt out of ANY federal law either by initiative (petition) or state legislative powers naming a federal law unconstitutional. Why do I think this is a stroke of genius?

Well, first the predictions are that there is a good chance this will pass to law. Why? Because it does not contain the word "secession" while being secession in all other forms. "Seceding" scares the begeebers out of some people...especially older folks dependent on the social security checks they were garanteed and worked toward all their lives. But to frame as the people voting to obtain the power to "opt out" of any federal law that unconstitutionally encroaches on state and citizen rights is very palatable....to just about everyone.

What will happen next? The Supreme Court will rule the DEMOCRATICALLY VOTED LAW unconstitutional. There is no better way to move the general populace of a state toward accepting secession than to have their DEMOCRATIC VOTE for the power to say NO be taken from them by the federal government. At that point you find yourself in the old adage "No means no". My oppressor cannot state I do not have the right to say no.

Now, to the talk of "would there be war". As I said there must not NECESSARILY be, but it would probably be inevitable.

Let's take the initiation of the first Civil War. There were months of warnings by the seceded state of South Carolina for U.S. federal troops (now viewed as occupying forces in a sovereign confederacy) to remove themselves from that state's property, specifically forts. They would not comply. As we are well aware the proper maneuvers for having forces in place in a sovereign country is to first open lines of diplomacy and negotiate those troops' presence. The US government chose not to act with diplomacy and instead continue to occupy what was now foreign soil.

Even up to the last minute Brig. General Beauregard was offering unconditional surrender to avoid initiating bloodshed in order to remove the federal occupying troops from Forts Moultrie and Sumter as well as Castle Pinckney. His offer was refused and the first official military shot was fired in order to take the fort and remove the federal troops.

I don't see the federal government having anymore sense in round two. It most likely would come to blows. But I take issue with your statement that no change would be affected by secession of numerous states. I believe there would be tremendous change. Permanent change.

edit on 7-11-2012 by Valhall because: (no reason given)

I don't mind at all ValHall. Like I said, this is a thought provoking thread to me.

In reading your OP and most of the links provided, I thought going to the extreme of a second civil war was stupid (on the part of the federal government) given my feelings about the PPACA (I don't think that anyone who has read my posts regarding this issue can mistake my stance). I truly hope that any kind "threatening with a big stick" (ie...withholding of funds to states) or any kind of war won't have to happen.

It was not my intent to state in anyway that succession of states from the union wouldn't bring change. I agree there would be changes and maybe even permanent changes by such an act. Perhaps not changes that anyone would truly want.

What I was trying to state was my opinion that in light of what I was taught in school about the civil war doesn't quite compare to the situation regarding the PPACA (given that this legislation doesn't come close to addressing the problems with healthcare).

I would like to see this legislation nullified in any state where the citizens of the state feel that the law is wrong. Hopefully that would send a message to the feds that they need to reconsider and act for the people and not the big money companies.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and share your thoughts.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Would it make everyone feel better if they changed the term to "Romneycare"? It was, afterall, his idea to begin with...

edit on 10-7-2012 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)

Yes, because Romneycare was voted on by the people. Give me a vote and I will shut up. Otherwise you should do the same.

So I have written off to my U.S. congressional members as well as my state level congressional members and asked them if they can provide documentation as to whether the enumerated requirements and explicitly stated intent of standing Executive Order 13132 have been met in the implementation of ObamaCare.

Here's the EO text: www.gpo.gov...

And as a follow up a very interesting detailed write up on the intent, requirements and scope of the EO:

aspe.hhs.gov...

Curiously, and ironically, with that wright up being from the HHS - which is the very agency implementing the healthcare plan.

Of course, none of the congressional members that represent Oklahoma voted for this thing, so I'm kind of banging on innocent people, but maybe they will respond with some type of verification.