Free Republic

98% of the uninsured are in category number three. The cost of their unreimbursed care and subsequent bankruptcy increases medical costs for the rest of us.

Well, I think there is some degree of consensus that absent an individual mandate, there needs to be some reform with respect to catastrophic care being provided for “free” to the uninsured . The status quo results in artificially High medical care costs due to hospitals and providers passing along the cost of taking care of the uninsured onto the rest of us with insurance.

.... except that with the type of bills we are talking about and the type of person who typically goes uninsured, a bankruptcy is virtually guaranteed and eliminates the possibility of future wage garnishment.

I agree with your position that absent government funding, we would likely see a golden age of charity that would do great things to unite our country and society. Fraternal organizations are obsolete in this era of the nanny state.

How to you handle emergency / catastrophic care for the uninsured? Deny them life saving treatment due to their choice not to insure and their inability to pay?

If you repeal the individual mandate, then how do you fix the free rider problem of individuals who choose not to carry insurance but still expect world class Medical Care when they are sick or injured?

I think we as a society have decided we are not going to withhold emergency medical care from someone regardless of their inability to pay. Furthermore, Reagan signed into law EMTALA which is an unfunded mandate on hospitals and doctors to provide emergency care regardless of ability to pay. How do we fix the problem of individuals being provided expensive Medical Care who have no way of paying for it since they choose not to purchase insurance until they become sick?

I don’t have any problem with people objecting to questions from their doctor they find intrusive. I do, however, find it offensive that the government thinks it should be illegal for ANY particular individual or class (whether they are a doctor, lawyer, plumber, etc) to ask a question. It’s a perfect example of government sticking its nose in a place it doesn’t belong.

I'm not sure if any of you have been following this case, but it involved a law passed in Florida last year which prevented doctors from asking their patients about gun ownership. Doctors argued that as part of a medical screening exam they ask about everything from swimming pools, seat belts, bike safety, guns, etc. to make sure that all appropriate safety measures were being taken. They argued that that they have free speech like anyone else, and if the patient/parent doesn't like it, then they are free to go elsewhere. The NRA argued that inquiring about firearms is an infringement on the patient's 2nd amendment, and many patients do not have options to seek care from another physician, so therefore the law is necessary. The judge didn't by the NRA argument and ruled that the law is unconstitutional.

“Nanny state” is a term better used to define the government prohibiting a physician from asking a question about whether or not a person owns guns. If you don’t like the question, tell him it’s none of his business. If your doctor is offended, find another doctor.

How are those questions I posted any different than those about a gun?

Is your right to privacy with respect to what you eat or how you exercise any less protected than your privacy with respect to whether or not you own a gun and how it is stored??

Here’s an editorial from the Pensacola News Journal blasting the bill. It makes a lot of sense, IMO.

http://www.pnj.com/article/20110312/OPINION/103120306/Editorial-Another-bad-gun-bill

In Gov. Rick Scott’s quest to make Florida “business friendly,” he should consider the importance of having enough doctors to provide good health care to the state’s residents.

And then, should it pass, veto legislation intended to restrict doctors, nurses and other medical professionals from, in most cases, even asking about the presence of firearms in a home.

In cases where doctors might suspect depression, domestic violence, mental instability, inadequate adult oversight of children or other problems, concern about the availability of firearms becomes a potential medical issue.

Why the state should interfere in this is almost beyond comprehension. And why conservative lawmakers who profess to believe that government should stay out of health care and not impose politically motivated restrictions on individual freedom is also almost beyond comprehension.

We say “almost” because there is no real mystery: The NRA wants it. And when powerful NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer cracks her whip, Republicans in the Legislature shout “Thank you, ma’am, may I have another?”

Hammer maintains that the legislation “is about taking politics, pure politics, out of the examining room,” when of course it is exactly the reverse. It is imposing the NRA’s view of gun rights even into the medical examining room.

The NRA sees anything having to do with guns as a Second Amendment issue. But while the Constitution gives you the right to own a gun, it doesn’t say no one can ask you if have one.

The reality is this doesn’t even smack of regulating guns, much less restricting their use or ownership. But don’t hold your breath waiting for any Republican in Tallahassee to point out the obvious.

Frankly, it seems amazing that the legislation is even constitutional. What right does the state Legislature have to tell doctors what they can or cannot ask their patients in their professional duties?

Some legislators claim the law is needed because constituents complained about doctors refusing to treat them when they refused to answer the question. That refusal itself might raise a red flag if the doctor had some reason to worry about the presence of guns in a home, but otherwise, why don’t they just get another doctor? In a free society, isn’t that the proper response?

What’s next? Will people with high cholesterol who object to their doctors inquiring about their diets demand the Legislature ban doctors from asking about their potato chip consumption?

The Florida Medical Association, complaining that it’s already tough to recruit doctors to Florida, warns that the legislation — another bad gun bill sponsored by Sen. Greg Evers, R-Crestview — will make Florida “a laughingstock” in the profession.

Memo to Gov. Scott: Doctors earn a lot more than the average wage in Florida. We need more of them, not fewer.

When I was growing up back in the 50's and 60's we had a saying to the effect, "your rights end when they start to intrude upon my rights". Not trying to be difficult here Doc but I have a privacy right that as a doctor you must respect no matter whether you like it or not.

So, is it a violation of your privacy if I ask about your diet? Or exercise habits? Or previous health problems? Can these questions be outlawed and cause me to be sent to jail as well?

What is the basis of that which entitles doctors to ask about guns in the home in the first place?

Free speech, for one.

If memory serves, the medical profession has been collecting this data since the seventies and though I do not remember who they turned it over to the information did go into a data base.

LOL, doubtful. Link???

Do physicians no longer have the right to free speech?

Like I said, I’ve never asked a patient if he or she were a gun owner (unless it was to compare collections). If a doctor asks you if you are a gun owner and you don’t like it, let them know. If you don’t like their response, find a new doctor. Why do you need a law and a criminal punishment?

Are we that weak as gun owners that we don’t have courage and we need help from the government to solve this non-issue??

For the record, I’ve never asked if a patient is a gun owner. It doesn’t matter in my line of work. But it certainly may be relevant for a pediatrician to instruct parents about proper securing of firearms, seeing as accidental deaths are a leading cause of death for children and teens. Do you think the physicians are part of some scam to get a list of gun owners, or are they simply trying to educate the parents of kids who may be around guns? What about free speech? Does anyone see this as an intrusion into the free speech rights of the physician? Maybe it should be illegal for third parties to have access to any records (including medical records) which contain information about gun ownership. That would make a lot more sense than sending a physician to jail for a year for simply asking a question and trying to potentially educate parents about the safe use and storage of firearms.

The AMA is fairly liberal. The FMA certainly is not.

I’m a doctor, and a lifetime NRA member. This legislation bothers me because it is exactly the type of program that we accuse Obamacare of doing... a government intrusion into the patient-physician relationship.

Arguably the two most powerful conservative groups in the state are fighting a civil war of sorts, at a time when conservatives hold both houses and Rick Scott is governor. The NRA feels it must pass a new law every year in order to be relevant (ie guns at work bill last year). I have a hard time justifying a year in jail and $1 million fine for a physician simply asking if a patient properly stores his/her guns.

Isn’t there a better candidate out there who isn’t a trial lawyer or has been arrested multiple times for DUI/public intoxication?

From Todd Long’s web site

“Aside from the humor presented in movies and on television, there is nothing funny about slip and fall cases. From falls in the grocery store due to improperly maintained aisles to falls at a neighbor’s swimming pool due to an excessively slippery deck surface, the resulting injuries can be very severe. Many accidental falls occur on a homeowner’s premises, which are covered by the homeowner’s insurance, others occur at commercial venues which include restaurants, grocery stores or theme parks around the Orlando area. Broken bones, knocked-out teeth, cuts and abrasions, all the way up to traumatic brain injury, paraplegia, quadriplegia and even death all are possible consequences of a “mere” slip and fall.

Florida law requires, before recovering any money damages in a slip and fall case, that one must first prove that the landowner or business owner was negligent in maintaining his property. We can give your slip and fall case the attention it deserves. We have the resources to conduct a thorough investigation into the cause of your slip and fall, to help establish which parties are liable for your injuries. We can give you an up-front assessment of your case and what it is worth. If an appropriate settlement offer does not come in, I am a Board Certified Trial Lawyer and am prepared to take your case to trial.

I have had over 15 years of experience handling serious personal injury cases, including slip and fall cases. I am a Board Certified Civil Trial specialist, a distinction that less than 2% of all Florida attorneys can claim.

Call our office or submit an online case evaluation today for a free assessment of your case. And remember - if we don’t recover money for you, you don’t pay.”

After reading the bill, I think the super exemption will be almost as good as SOH in terms of a cap. It will cap local revenue at the rate of personal income growth, which historically has been ~3.5%/yr over the past 20 years. It’s not as good as the SOH 3% cap, but close. In addition, local governments can raise revenue an additional 3% with a super majority vote or 5% with a unanimous vote. This is where the super exemption is more risky than SOH. However, it’s important to note that the revenue caps do not reset each year. So, once a municipality raises revenue 5% over the personal income growth cap ONE TIME, they are stuck at that level FOREVER, unless a voter referendum allows increased revenue.

I’ll admit, I was lukewarm about the bill when I first heard about it. However, after they added the ability to choose between SOH and the super exemption, I think it will pass easily in January. Remember that 5 of 7 constitutional amendments last year met the new required 60% threshold.