The opposition to health care reform have decided that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids the federal government from passing legislation regulating health care insurance. Some blogs have named those taking this stand as "tenthers". Over at the American Prospect, Ian Millhiser explained it this way,
"Tenthers divine all this from the brief language of the 10th Amendment, which provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In layman's terms, this simply means that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers -- such as the power to regulate interstate commerce or establish post offices or make war on foreign nations -- and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress' authority."
So the tenthers read the Constitution ...
... and finding no mention of health care insurance conclude that the federal government has no power to pass laws on health care. Setting aside the fact that the federal government already runs the nation's largest health care insurance operation, Medicare, there are many other necessary and useful roles that the US government fulfills which are not mentioned in the Constitution.. By the same tenther logic, you can conclude that the federal government has no authority to regulate automobile, rail, or air travel safety or the safety of pharmaceuticals. But the feds have been doing that for well over a century and I think most Americans are quite happy that they do. Cars, trains, airplanes and pharmaceuticals were unknown when the Constitution was written. What do you think? Is the FAA an overreach of federal authority? Should the market decide which drugs are safe for your use? Comment below.
Posts
61 comments:
All this debate over health care but it really boils down to one question doesn't it? Will they pass reforms that benefit the people or will they cave in to the health insurance industry? I'm afraid we all know the answer. Before the state reformed health care, I was happy with my health plan and my doctor at Dartmouth medical walk-in. Then I was told that my health care policy no longer qualified. The least expensive plan that I could find which qualified was triple the price, and Dr. Butler's office doesn't accept it. Triple the price and now I have to go to New Bedford Community Health Center which was the only place I could find who would accept my new plan. I wonder how much worse it will be when the feds are done "reforming" health care? I am not a democrat or republican just a working stiff telling you a true story.
Thank you anon 3:23. Your story is one reason to be wary of all this 'reform' I am happy with my current health care, my doctors and to a lesser extent its cost to me. I want them all to simply leave me alone and let me live my life. Why is that so difficult for so many people to understand?
Are you people happy with premiums and co-pays going up every single year, yet we do not receve better treatment for the money spent. Copays and premiums are going up 20-25% a year.
The question should be why is health care so expensive? Here is a breakdown of what some other countries spend per person.
Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)
You are being ripped off by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Our health care is not two or three times better than these other countries, just two or three times more expensive. By most measures, they have better outcomes than we do.
That's why we need reform and that's why a public option with no profits and low overhead is crucial. The problem with the Massachusetts reform is that it lacks the ability to institute cost control.
One thing I left out in my last comment. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans cannot get health insurance at any cost because of pre-existing conditions. Even not covering those who are sick, our system is twice as expensive. Why? We are being looted!
I agree with everything you are saying Bill but the truth is, I really don't think the end result will help me or any of the others who are just working to pay taxes and insurance premiums . I have to pay for my own health care. It is expensive and like most people whether they will admit it or not, I am one illness away from bankruptcy. Most insurance policies today only cover 80% and there are limits to what the insurance company will pay. The current system has no security and the costs are too high. I would love to see real reform with a public option though I am doubtful it will help the cost. Mass. required that I only use a plan accepted under its guidelines so I am now paying three times as much as I was for the same coverage under my old plan and I cannot choose my own doctor. I'm quite sure when all is done I will be getting screwed again but it would be worth it if the insurance companies can be stopped from not covering people if they feel they are a risk or making out of pocket expenses so high that people lose everything they have because they were unfortunate enough to become ill.
Bill,
I posted over 3 months ago about this EXACT subject. I told you then, before all the pundits, that this was ILLEGAL.
You chastized me then and now you see it is a valid argument. Just because other unconstituional laws have passed without challenge does not mean this one is exempt from the rules.
Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)
Strange post bill. The cost per person is less because the GOVERMENTS listed above REFUSE to treat people. The listed healthcare of those countries is not as good as in the States, although your side uses life expectancy as a ruler instead of quality of life. WE have the best healthcare going, it can be tweaked but not destroyed.
How is offering a public option destroying health care? This argument continues to amaze me. We have other examples of this very thing in our country and they work. We have state vs private universities, we have Medicare, we have the postal service vs. Fed Ex and UPS. None of them have destroyed the other.
The same scare tactics about who will be in charge of my health care continue to bore me. Right now my insurance company is in charge of my health care. Anyone who thinks their doctor is, is living in a fantasy world. My insurance company will not allow me to choose my own doctor. Most people have to choose a doctor within the network. Why is it okay when the insurance companies do it but it becomes the boogeyman when people think that is what the government will do? I don't see how a public option would be any different. The only legitimate argument I can see in this whole mess should be about cost. What people should be holding rallies for and protesting about is all the government spending that has only benefited corporate America. Health care reform and a public option are something that can help everyone and certainly those who need it the most.
Please provide some backup for your claim that US health care is the best. On what basis do you make that claim? Here is a Harvard Business school analysis of US health care outcomes vs other developed nations. We don't stack up well.
Can you provide any statistical data that other countries are not treating people. I don't want anecdotal evidence. How does the system work for everyone in those countries.
My question was, are you willing to have the federal government stop providing air traffic control, stop requiring that pharmaceutical companies do adequate trials to insure their products are safe and effective, stop regulating broadcast frequencies, and on and on? None of these are listed in the Constitution and are illegal in your opinion. Should our government stop doing these things?
Watch the video here We're #37! Hurrah!
A public option will not affect private insurers just like Southworth library didn't put Barnes and Noble out of business. The insurance industry doesnt want reform because they are making to much money, and they make more money every time they deny a claim. Insurance Companies look out for their bottomline before they look out for you.
Comparisons to the Post Office? Are you for real?! The post office is broke-they cannot compete, they do not keep up with technology,and i dare say FedEx and Ups thrive because the USPS is largly incompetent. Medicare is similarly ill equipped to continue in its current form.
Bill, where do advances in pharmaceuticals come from> The UK?no Asia? no Sweden? no South America? again, no. The answer is America and yes it's expensive. A non prfit government option will drive private insurance ouut of business, to say otherwise is simply not acknowledging reality, or put another way is lying. Oh I forgot we can't say that anymore.
As an addition to my last comment Libraries provide you with ,literaly FREE books, no copay or deposit. A public option will require a co pay and premiums just like medicare, so if anything a library is alot stiffer competition than a public option. Would you like to buy a 25 dollar book from the bookstore or borrow the same book for nothing, but yet barnes and noble is making millions of dollars a year.
Healthcare cost per person is up to 10,000 dollars in Massachusetts. The highest per person cost in the WORLD
Ray, Your comparison to libraries is bogus because Obama claims that he will not accept reform unless it is revenue neutral. Libraries are not revenue neutral. Southworth Library is funded mostly by taxes(supplemented by some fundraising) so, no Ray, the books there are not free.
My comparison of libraries and a chain bookstore shows that a public non profit can work along side a corporate entity. Yes it takes taxes to run a library, but all in all when you go to a library you are getting a service that provides "free" books. Rather than paying 25 dollars a book, you can walk into Southworth and pay nothing to read the same book.
Or get the same book on the Internet and not have to "go" anywhere. Don't even have to leave the house or get out of your pj's. A few clicks and keystrokes and you're there.
Yes I agree. We should re-visit the whole library issue and consider why it should stay open at all. There are savings to be had there.
Ray, the books are not free. They are paid for by tax dollars. To continue to say they are is just more inaccurate information. Free health care for those who cannot afford it is not free for the taxpayers or those who do have coverage. One way or another, we pay for everything that is "free".
Bill the congressional budget office says the Pres' plan will cost much more than he claims and will cost us more from day one. If that is so then the plan does not address one of your prime complaints about our current system, that is it costs too much. What am I missing or is one side of the government right and the other is wrong? Cant have it both ways.
you are correct they are not "free" but they do operate alot cheaper than a national bookstore and while your library may use tax dollars to provide a service,it is far less than the cost of a few books you may buy at Barnes and noble. People without insurance are one of the main reasons our premiums are so high. Your insurance cost includes those who come into the emergency room for non emergency care. So it will never be free healthcare,I never claimed it to be, in fact President Obama has stated that you will pay a premium to enter the public option, but at an extremely reduced rate compared to a private plan
another reason for high premiums from your private plan is administration costs. The ratio between doctors and administration is huge. Over the last 27 years doctors have increased 100% while adminstrators have increased 2500%.
Tenthers are just the latest incarnation from the ultra wacko right. they should be ignored just like Perry of Texas calling for succession from the union.
Or the wacko Wilson from SC who could not prove that the President lied even when he was given national attention. the reason was because there was no lie.
these All American idiots can't fathom that the excesses of corporate healthcare and insurance industries are sustained by the huge lobbying effort we see today, never by the will of the people.
I am not questioning that insurance premiums are too high mostly due to malpractice insurance, administration costs and greed. However I do not believe that the government will be of any help keeping my premiums down. Nor do I believe administrative costs will be kept in check once a new government bureaucracy is created to oversee and run the public option plan. If we know anything about our government, it loves to create new positions and departments with well connected friends to run them. I am all for health care reform and a public option but I do not have blinders on. Just as Republicans are using scare tactics to oppose this plan, Democrats & liberals are glossing over the truth. We will be paying dearly for national health care through our premiums and taxes.
TORT reform is needed but it is not the main problem when speaking of cost reduction,TORT is only about 2.4% of the costs in your premium.
I hear alot of people speaking about their fear of government controlled "anything". I personally believe the American worker we should not be held "hostage" by employers because of the employer based health insurance. People are afraid to even change jobs,even if it's for a better one with more pay, because they would have to wait 3 MONTHS for health benefits to kick in. Universal health insurance would give the american worker the freedom to change jobs without fear of going 3 months without insurance and pursue their goals,rather than being strapped down just for the sake of insurance
You've got to love the name calling. James is particularly good getting in a slew of names in short paragraphs. Nice job James-really moving the ball forward. Perhaps I should not be too hard on james however; former president Carter has set the bar it seems. Left to Mr Carter the real problem here is that 1/2 of us are simply racist. Once we accept that, sit down and shut up all our problems will go away. Silly me-I thought I had a good grasp on who I was until Mr Carter set me straight.
What plan are we voting on? Is it the one we just had to vote on before the summer break? Is it the one Nancy Pelosi is pushing? Is it the one the President spoke of during his speech? Or is it the plan that Bachus unveiled today?
Reread my original post. If you think the government isn't effective. Do you want the government in charge of air traffic control, the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals, the safety of our food,the protection of our environment, the health care of our seniors? Does the government do a good job with these? Medicare admin costs are 1/10 of the insurance companies. US per capita health care spending is $7290, France spends $3201, Germany $3588. And you are worried that the government will spend too much? You're being ripped off now and you don't want to change it?
To be honest Bill the government does not do a good job with air traffic control-have you flown lately? The post office is going out of business. You have not answered the question posed by someone else about the governments own report that says Obama's plan will cost those currently insured an additional $500-$750 than they are already paying now? How is that helping me any? How does that get me closer to the cost of insurance in France? It does not Bill. Why does'nt the gov't look at solving the simple things first, like being able to shop insurance across state lines? Why does'nt the President explain to us specifically how insuring some 40 million plus more people will cost less? Saying 'through efficiencies' is not an answer. Why does'nt he explain to us which plan we are supposed to endorse?
Why does'nt the president disavow ugly racial comments by the former president Jimmy Carter? Too many unanswered questions for me to jump on board Bill and it's not like he has not had the TV time to explain at least 1 or 2 of these things. The problem is that he can't so his plans and programs will fail as we are seeing.
Jimmy Carter a racist! That's a good one. Look no further than Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Beck for your racists. There are literally hours of their programs to prove it.
The president has indeed been on teevee and put out his plan. You are not listening.
The health care system we now have is bankrupting the country and stealing your money. I guess you are OK with that.
Take a letter to UPS or Fedex and see if they will deliver it for the same amount as the post office.
Oh Bill, you are not listening. I don't give a rat's tail about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or anybody else-I find it interesting that you liberals seem to think they are the only people that object to things the president is doing. I care that Jimmy Carter calls any opposition to the president racially based and the president stands by and does nothing to distance himself from such hateful, divisive comments. The presidents plan will cost me still more money and no he has not produced A single detail that explains how he will do all he wants, make things better and save me money. Why should I let him steal MORE of my money to put it in terms you seem to like to use. And you are correct, neither UPS or FedEx will deliver somethings as cheaply as the USPS. You know why? because the USPS business model NO LONGER WORKS and they are to inept to adapt to the changing technological needs of today. That is why the USPS is going bankrupt Bill. They move like a turtle when they need to move like a rabbit today.
Next we'll likley hear about how mail delivery is a civil right guaranteed by the founders and it should be free to all.....can't wait.
Reread my original post. If you think the government isn't effective. Do you want the government in charge of air traffic control, the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals, the safety of our food,the protection of our environment, the health care of our seniors? Does the government do a good job with these?
THe Government does an adequate job with the things you listed. THAT does not change the fact they are illegal.
There are ways for the States to change the Constitution, Ammendments are voted on when changes are made. To simply make illegal goverment bodies is not allowed.
Look at your list bill. A Democratic controlled congress passed the "law" to allow all those agencies. They are illegal even if they are good.
Make an ammendment to the Constitution if you think the votes are there.
Hey, even though arguing with AnonyMouse would be like arguing with a dining table, (thanks Barney).
I have a question for her. If the government programs are illegal, then why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled against the creation and continued existence of the various administrations?
Shouldn't the Tenthers be protesting outside the Supreme Court? Aren't Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito remiss in their duty to defend the constitution?
Shouldn't you clever tenthers make big posters with their faces so cutely adorned w Adolf mustaches. Naw, you are just phony freaks.
This is decided law.
the truth is that the tenthers are a fringe group that have no popular support and although they have every right to protest, they have no legal ground to stand on, therefore they are wackos! im not calling anyone a name but this group of people are simply annoying freaks. if the United States listened to them we would all be speaking Russian, or Japanese, or the king's english today.
They should be ignored, at least until dinner time when they should be wiped with Pledge and table settings plcaed all around.
James - the Hitler posters and such are promulgated by LaRouche DEMOCRATS not conservatives. Not that it matters to you guys - may as well lump everyone together to help bolster your positions. DOes not make it true however.
James, re-read your own post. In one sentence you say you are not calling anyone names. The sentence before that calls people freaks, the sentence after that calls them wackos. Which is it? Freaks or wackos-I just am trying to keep track. Thanks.
If the government programs are illegal, then why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled against the creation and continued existence of the various administrations?
Someone has to file a lawsuit for the Courts to hear the complaint. If no complaint is filed the Supreme Court cannot simply take it up.
Justice Clarence Thomas agrees with the tenthers on many occasions. Yes you heard me a USSC Justice is in agreement.
While most of our government use the Constitution as LAW some, such as our President call the Constitution a flawed document. I say our Constitution is far less flawed than Barry's birth certificate.
I think everyone should take a moment and actually listen to the President. Despite how you feel about the health care issue, our President has said more than once that he does not believe the opposition is racially driven (anon 9:09 you are incorrect in saying that he has not addressed this issue). He has also said he is not happy with the media only focusing on the extremists from both sides. I am not sure what the results of his Presidency will be. I, like many others, am unsure of his policies but I do like how he handles himself. I think he has the ability to see past the dog and pony shows. I also think he doesn't let personal feelings cloud his judgement. Many people are unhappy with Obama, even those who voted for him, but the question we need to ask is, was there a better choice? Considering the mess left behind, would anyone else be doing a better job right now? I am by nature a pessimist when it comes to politicians. I think they all suck but I don't know that anyone else stepping into that office would be doing any better.
Many people voted for him because of what he said he stood for, which was getting out of Iraq and health care. These two things were the main issues he proclaimed during the campaign. People are acting like this healthcare issue was something that sprung out of nothing. When i here people say I am sorry I voted for Obama, I have to ask,why did you vote for him in the first place. Was it Iraq,the economy or healthcare or was it a combonation of all three
anon 8:58 - If Obama disavowed racist comments by Jimmy Carter I must have missed it. I do not believe he did or it would have been shown on every newscast 24/7 just as Carter's ignorant rant was. The media focuses on only one side of the debate-bringing attention to only the far right nonsense. Very little is ever said about Pelosi's 'nazi' comments describing opposition, or some other Dem senator who believe protester's should be monitored and 'talked to'. I still am lost as to what Obama anted the congress to vote on so earnestly last spring pre-summer break? What plan did he have in mind then when one is not even cogent now. All this speed for the sake of speed does nothing but foster ill will. Same is now being said about the sudden channge in missile defenses for Poland. Overnight game changer. What happened?
anon 5:49. I agree. Both sides need to stop the rhetoric. It's tiresome. I also stated that I am unsure of Obama's policies or which direction he will take us. However, I will ask my question again. Considering the mess left behind by Bush & Co., do you feel someone could be doing a better job and if so, who?
I do not think there were very many good choices unfortuantely. I am also not one to state that all our current ills are the result of George W - there is plenty of blame to go around.
I think Mitt Romney may have been the best choice out of a lackluster group but that did'nt work out too well.....
Thanks for being so candid and actually answering a question posed to you. It is unusual.
Unfortunately I never paid much attention to Mitt Romney. The only thing I did know him for was making health insurance mandatory in Mass. which forced me into a different plan when I was already happy with the one I had and my premium tripled. Needless to say I was not happy about that. I would like to know what kind of effect that has had on everyone. Are premiums cheaper now because we are supposed to save money if everyone is covered? Is it saving the state money? Are people happy with the plan choices? I have heard nothing about the results of this initiative although those who want national health care are holding up Mass. as a shining example. We already have the test run right here in Mass., yet no one is saying a word about how it is going here. You would think there would be comparisons, statistics, pro and con reports, financial data etc. Why no information for such a controversial issue?
I have heard little good about the Mass health plan. As a matter of fact I heard just today about someone complaining about Mass Health because her doctor no longer accepted it so she was now looking for a new doctor. It is also causing the state some of its significant money problems-I read that it is costing hundreds of millions more than originally thought. Lastly, people that did not want to get insurance - many young adults for instance are now forced to get it using often scarce resources to do it.
I don't think you hear too many comparisons because it has not been a blockbuster success. Having had to wait recently in an emergency room for a sibling's small accident I don't see any relief to the crowds at St Luke's which was another supposed benefit of mandatory health care.
Yes, Romney had his faults too and bowed out early, like I said originally a pretty dismal field of candidates all around. I suppose the smart people know enough to stay out of politics.
The keystone of the current health reform plan will be that everyone will be mandated to buy health insurance, including many younger people who now take the calculated risk to not have it. This will benefit the insurance companies by increasing their revenues. There will be no public option, no meaningful tort reform, and our premiums will continue to skyrocket in the future. Bow to the huge corporate insurance companies. They are your master.
STEVE PAGLIUCA - A Republican Trojan Horse for Ted Kennedy's seat? It is possible and most likely. He backed Mitt Romney when he challenged Ted for his seat along with many other issues.
Steve Pagliuca backed Willard "Mitt" Romney against his "epic" 1994 Senate Race against Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
* Steve Pagliuca's wife, Judy Pagliuca, wrote the checks for the "attack ads on Ted Kennedy.
* Steve Pagliuca supported Republican Bill "Amber Colored Liquid" Weld in his Senate Race against Senator John Kerry.
* Steve Pagliuca gave money to George W. Bush in his race for President against Vice President Al Gore.
Let's expose this Republican Trojan Horse before Steve Pagliuca's Million Dollars tries to destroy the Democratic Party and the memory of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
Give it a rest will you Ray.
Ray, Stop the non-sense!!! The GOP is taking over here in Dartmouth and you and your stupid little democratic town committee can do nothing to stop it. Try all you want,we are gaining a foothold in the town. Fiscal conservatives and Social conservatives will be back running this country in 2 years. In fact if everything pans out we will run this town and have a seat in the state house if Quinn ever decides to move on.
Hello Bill, You ask why health care is so expensive. In Massachusettes and in particular the southcoast areas the cost for malpractice for ob-gyn doctors who deliver babies is
$300,000-350,000 per year. Yes you are reading this right. These doctors may be responsible for medical or mental health issues until a child is 18 yrs old. Many doctors have stopped doing deliveries or have left the state. Tort reform is a must. As I said in previous post defensive medicine rules. Little Johnny falls off the swing at a playground, has no signs of neurological problems, is stable but the parents are demanding a cat scan to be sure. There are no such standards like this in any other country. Again lifestyles affect health. The diet of other countries is not full of so much fat and processed sugar, portions are small.
The cost of educating a doctor is tremendous. Doctors sacrifice at least 10 years of medical training and most are in debt for $300,000 or more after finishing their residency.
I know this post is long but we do have health care for everyone in
Massachusettes. Gov. Romney and the late Sen. Kennedy worked very hard to make this happen. These plans have been advertised in papers, doctors offices, welfare offices, everywhere on TV and newspapers in all languages. When someone goes to the hospital a financial person is assigned get everyone signed up for coverage. Interpreters are present in all languages either in person or through a telephone system covering over 48 languages. No other country requires this. The problem is people do not return the paperwork which is a proof of residency. Phone calls are never returned when follow up is done. Some people qualify for a plan that is only $6.oo a month and we are told I am not paying that, it is too much. The cost of the care of the uninsured is absorbed by hospitals and people who have insurance that get a charge in their insurance to cover the uninsured. Private insurance is partly covering the uninsured. I don't want to take any more space on this blog, but these are just a few things that make healthcare in the USA so pricy that other countries do not have to contend with.
Terry, as far as I am concerned, you can take up as much space on this blog as you want.
You are providing us with unbiased, unopinionatted, facts and I, for one, appreciate it.
malpractice(TORT) reform needs to be established,BUT that is only 2% of the entire cost for the rise in health insurance premiums. While the price tag of 300,000 dollars a years is an extraordinary price,it is only a sliver of the entire cost
We need more reational, knowledgable posts from people like Terry Brum.
Thank you.
Administration costs, including advertisements are 20% of the cost to a private insurance plan. Over the last 27 years,Doctors have increased 100% over this time,while adminstrators have increased 2500%(two thousand five hundred). Medicare and medicaid administration costs are not nearly as high as private plans. This is a major reason for therie in premiums.
Here is what I believe is going to happen with health care.
1. Everyone will be forced to have coverage.
2. Premiums will not go down.
3. The only people who will benefit are those who cannot afford insurance because the government will pick up the tab to offer a low/no cost plan and our taxes/premiums will go up to pay for it.
4. Insurance companies will benefit greatly because if insurance is mandatory, they will have a bigger pool to collect premiums from.
Amen Anon 4:11. The middle class gets screwed once again. What problems has universal health care solved here in MA?
Have premiums gone down? No
Have waits in the ER shortened? No
Are more DR's leaving MA? Yes
Have our taxes been reduced? No
Do illegal aliens still get covered for free? Yes
Is a large part of Massachusetts' deficit Mass Care related? Yes
What have we accomplished?
Hello everyone. Where do our of our health care dollars go?
Some research claims that 85% of our health care dollars go to the care of chronic illnesses. What does this cost us a year? According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)The top chronic illnesses are arthritis at a cost of a $128 billion a year in 2003. That cost included the indirect cost of lost wages. The cost of cancer care in 2003 was estimated at 228 billion dollars. Diabetes in 2007 was 174 billion, which included loss wages and sick days. In 2009 the projected cost of direct and indirect costs such as loss wages for heart disease and stroke is estimated at $475 billion. Obesity related cost in 2000 totaled $117 billion. Today more than 1/3 of U.S. adults are considered obese. The economic burden according to the CDC for tobacco is estimated at $96 billion in medical expenditures and another $97 billion in indirect costs. The USA General Accounting office estimates the cost of chronic illnesses to be about $685 billion in 2020, just about 10 years away.
In the United States health care is starting to look more at prevention. This will take much education and access to care both physically and financially. Not an easy task. I have been fortunate to meet health care providers from other countries and learn how care is delivered and handled.In Denmark physical therapy is not covered and considered unnecessary. I am amazed that the volunteer operating Room teams have very low infection rates for post op orthopedic surgery. After their surgery patients go and sit out on the porch and are cared for by their families. Tylenol is given for knee surgery and pain is expected as part of healing. They cannot afford crutches. How amazing is the human body!
There are no easy solutions to health care costs I am amazed at the advances in science. Humbled by the great minds making strides in cancer and in genetics to unravel the mysteries of disease.
The gentleman who invented the Zoll defibrilator worked on this in his garage. Scientific research is much more complicated today and requires lots of red tape and capital. Some things like an inhaler that costs $3.00 in Mexico on vacation cost $30.00 here at a pharmacy. Some of these costs can be controlled. Again no easy answers or solutions. If we get preventive care paid for such as physicals, screenings and education in healthy habits it may be a good start.
Seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars ( 750,000 ) is taken from the (towns general funding) each year to pay the medical expense for an injured police officer. I wonder if a national health program will help pay for the officers medical expenses??
As it relates to town police employee's insurance coverage for catastrophic injury, our town leaders agreed on a policy of 100,000 thousand dollar, not enough to cover the officers injuries. Our town leaders, board of selectmen, never increased the town coverage for catastrophic injuries. Who would have thought?? Now the town has a policy for 1,000,000 million, at a town cost of 80,000 thousand per year. My thoughts and prayers go out to the injured police officer, and his family.
The police officer and his family, were covered by town insurance ( B/C B/S ) so why is it that the town shall pay all police related medical expenses?? The state of Massachusetts ( legislators ) passed a law mandating that all cities/towns shall pay all medical expenses for police officers injured while in the performance of their duty. This law covers the police officer from the time he/she leaves for work, and the time he/she arrives home from work. This law, under chapter 32- 111F has a city/town home rule option. In 1980, Dartmouth town meeting members, voted to accepted the home rule law.
As it relates to the law, the towns selectmen, should have increased the catastrophic injury clause from 100,000 thousand, to1,000,000 million dollars.
Most police people, familiar with the injured police officers crash, know the (details). The police officers injuries will continue to be payed by the town, until such time when we shall all find out that life as we know it, is not forever.
Anon 7:42 - what would the town have saved had it the 1,000,000 policy to begin with? $900,000 then it would still be paying after the coverage limit had been reached and it would have paid for 20 years worth of higher premiums-more than likley a wash and not worth dredging up again.
Ano 7:43 A.M.
The 1 million dollar policy is for catastrophic injuries. The one year policy is perpetual, it continues for as long as the police officer is injured. It's for the life of the person. The annual premium may change, but the coverage will never . Dartmouth gambled on this type of injury never occurring in Dartmouth. The cost to the town, would have been 80,000 dollars per year, not 750,000 dollars.
So the lawyers wouldn't cry fowl, the crash scene was turn over to the state police. They concluded that the second driver, failed to stop at the posted intersection. ( stop sign )
According to police department rumors, someone did something to the police detail book? Green book, “what's that secret your keeping”?? There's an old piano, playing some type of music, behind the green book Green book, “what's that secret your keeping”??
Post a Comment