Brexit Encore

[jeremyrh]

When I had my heart surgery in April the guy in the bed next to me was a middle age homeless person who was getting his heart valve repaired. All at the expense of the government. 

He had no money or insurance. His wife also homeless would take showers in our patients only bathroom. When he was transferred, she left with the pillows and linen. They were actually nice people. I wished them well.

Cool. So nobody in the US actually needs insurance! Who knew?

[jeremyrh]

Bad logic. If it is "ful," as you say, that was before the wall.

Bad reading comprehension. "Full" doesn't mean literally full in this context. Are you sure you're an American?

[Alan Klein]

Cool. So nobody in the US actually needs insurance! Who knew?

That's a great question.  I don;t know who paid for the heart surgery for the guy.  Apparently, EMS technicians picked him up on the street having a problem and brought him to to the Emergency Room.  When the doctors found he had this heart issue, they moved him up to my room in the heart wing of the hospital.  It could be that New York State is paying for it through Medicaid not the US government.  NY spends around 70 billion on Medicaid for NY residents.  The lack of insurance issue happens with recurring disease or condition that isn't an "emergency".

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bad logic. If it is "ful," as you say, that was before the wall.

Bad reading comprehension. "Full" doesn't mean literally full in this context..

You are deflecting. It is irrelevant what “full” means (noticed I put it in quotation marks in my previous post?). The point I was making, from the very beginning, is that the walls in Israel simply work, dramatically reducing illegal immigration and terrorist attacks.

[Chris Kern]

When I had my heart surgery in April the guy in the bed next to me was a middle age homeless person who was getting his heart valve repaired. All at the expense of the government.

Cool. So nobody in the US actually needs insurance! Who knew?

A U.S. federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to treat indigent patients with serious medical conditions.

Many people in the United States who do not otherwise qualify for comprehensive government-funded medical care (unlike, for example, veterans, old people, and those whose incomes are below the poverty level in the state where they live) typically check into hospital emergency rooms when they have a medical problem.

The law has been controversial because it frequently is used to provide treatment for routine medical problems.  One of the purposes of a subsequent federal statute, the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") was to provide a mechanism for those who could afford private medical insurance but previously could not qualify to purchase it—for example, because of existing conditions which insurance companies declined to cover—to acquire insurance coverage from government-operated marketplace "exchanges," thus relieving some of the economic pressure on hospitals to provide unreimbursed care to individuals who did not genuinely have a medical emergency.

[Alan Klein]

A U.S. federal statute, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), requires hospitals to treat indigent patients with serious medical conditions.

Many people in the United States who do not otherwise qualify for comprehensive government-funded medical care (unlike, for example, veterans, old people, and those whose incomes are below the poverty level in the state where they live) typically check into hospital emergency rooms when they have a medical problem.

The law has been controversial because it frequently is used to provide treatment for routine medical problems.  One of the purposes of a subsequent federal statute, the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") was to provide a mechanism for those who could afford private medical insurance but previously could not qualify to purchase it—for example, because of existing conditions which insurance companies declined to cover—to acquire insurance coverage from government-operated marketplace "exchanges," thus relieving some of the economic pressure on hospitals to provide unreimbursed care to individuals who did not genuinely have a medical emergency.

I never could understand how such a Act can be constitutional.  Where does it grant the Federal government the power to enact such laws and rules?    Why can;t the government then enact a law that requires butchers to furnish meat to indigent people?   Maybe cameras too? 

[degrub]

Unless prohibited in the constitution, congress and the state legislatures may make such legislation as they see fit.

So, no issue.

[Alan Klein]

Unless prohibited in the constitution, congress and the state legislatures may make such legislation as they see fit.

So, no issue.

You have it backwards at least for the Federal government.  The Constitution grants enumerated powers; it doesn't deny them.  If the power isn't listed in the Constitution, then the federal government isn't supposed to be able to pass laws about it.  For example, Congress once passed a law outlawing possession of guns within a certain distance from schools under its enumerated power to regulate Interstate Commerce.   The Supreme Court said this was going too far. There's no relation between the act and Commerce so the act became unconstitutional and unenforceable. 

So getting back to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986), under what enumerated powers does the constitution grant the Federal government the right to enact this law? 

[Jeremy Roussak]

It is less than immediately obviously that funding of American healthcare is relevant to Brexit. I don't mind some drift, but this is getting silly.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

Sorry about the drift.  I keep getting confused which thread I'm in.  Extreme Weather and the other "...skeptic...." thread are really very similar. 

[Rob C]

It is less than immediately obviously that funding of American healthcare is relevant to Brexit. I don't mind some drift, but this is getting silly.

Jeremy

;-)

[RSL]

It is less than immediately obviously that funding of American healthcare is relevant to Brexit. I don't mind some drift, but this is getting silly.

Jeremy

Getting?

[PeterAit]

I never could understand how such a Act can be constitutional.  Where does it grant the Federal government the power to enact such laws and rules?    Why can;t the government then enact a law that requires butchers to furnish meat to indigent people?   Maybe cameras too?

Because without meat or a camera you don't die.

[Rob C]

Because without meat or a camera you don't die.

Whoa there, Peter: that's complex; two factors at once!

:-)

[degrub]

speaking of drama -
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49570682

now it gets interesting.

[Alan Klein]

What if the EU doesn't give Britain what they want?

[Alan Klein]

It's not really about one side or another "not getting it" It's just that Alan doesn't know what he's talking about. That's ok - he doesn't live here so he's not aware of the issues, what's real and what's propaganda and he can't he expected to. But it just makes discussion a bit pointless.

Funny that's what I think of you Europeans always knowing what's best for America.

[kers]

What if the EU doesn't give Britain what they want?

It is impossible to have a border that is half open half closed- So the EU cannot give them that.
Also from the point of regulation immigration that would be a bad option ...
So the question is what do they want?

[Alan Klein]

It seems like they'll cancel Brexit then.

[Rhossydd]

So leaving the EU it is.

Not neccessarily.
There's never been an overall majority across the population to leave and there's still a VERY active campaign to remain in the EU. There still remains a good chance that snaity will will prevail and there'll be a second referendum which will overturn the first (dubious) result.