HealthCare Vent

[ArmyBimmerDude]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2010032...08599197442400

[arrutled]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

That is laughable coming from the guy who previously provided stories from Ezra Klein and that paragon of objectivity, the NY Times.

Now so that we all can judge the objectivity of 'your OMB guy,' is he a career employee of OMB or a political appointee?



The article addresses the law as signed. That is not dishonest. What is dishonest is the method used to pass what is an incredibly flawed piece of legislation. If the legislation had any level of popular support in the country, there would be no need to sign one bill into law and then hope to fix it with a different piece of legislation.

He is a career guy. I am not even going to comment on your second suggestion as it will soon be rectified. If you have any more questions or articles you would like me to run by him I will, but you will need to relax and continue in a reasonable manner for me to extend the courtesy. Thanks,

Andy

[arrutled]

............

[js2000]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

According to the CBO, 8 of the 24 million who remain uninsured 2019 are illegal immigrants so that is only a third of them not the majority. Also to dismiss their presence as irrelevant is absurd as they also utilize health care resources.



Maybe I'm wrong but isn't your entire analysis premised on the idea that having more people insured will create a greater demand for medical services?



You believe it is appropriate for the government to force a healthy young adult to purchase health insurance he doesn't want from a private corporation in order to subsidize the insurance of others? If so, we simply disagree.



Here is where your assumptions just don't add up. First, this bill will not result in 32 million more people being insured. Census data puts the number of people uninsured at around 45 million. Of those, 12 million are already eligible for medicaid/SCHIP but simply have not enrolled. That brings us to 33 million and the CBO says 24 million of these will remain uninsured by 2019. So we are at 9 million and if we add those already eligible but not covered, we are at 21 million potentially newly insured people.

Would 21 million newly insured people necessarily put an enormous drain on medical resources? Only if you assume that a good portion of these people would suddenly feel the need to see a doctor now that they are insured. As 9 million of them could already get coverage immediately, it is unlikely they will be knocking down the doors now. We have also agreed that a significant portion of this number is made up of healthy young adults who do not need to see a doctor.



Let's see what doctors rather than the political leadership of the AMA thinks. The Medicus Firm commissioned a survey entitled, “Physician Survey: Health Reform’s Impact on Physician Supply and Quality of Medical Care.” Here is what they found:

62.7 percent of physicians support a targeted, gradual approach to reform and oppose the current comprehensive overhaul.

46.3 percent of primary care physicians feel that “the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.”

So much for the AMA speaking for doctors.

since we are talking about health care bill's effect on the americans, coverage for the illegal immigrants are outside of this topic. there are 8 million illegal immigrants, and you will find the remaining of the 24 million in the following quote: Even among those eligible for Medicaid, not everyone enrolls. "Compliance is never 100 percent," Henry J. Aaron, an expert on the uninsured from the Brookings Institute, told Shots. Some of them just don't enroll, because they don't know it's available or don't find it necessary. "




"You believe it is appropriate for the government to force a healthy young adult to purchase health insurance he doesn't want from a private corporation in order to subsidize the insurance of others? If so, we simply disagree."

huh? i believe it is INAPPROPRIATE for the govt to FORCE these healthy young adult to buy health insurance if he/she chose not to.


According to you: "Here is where your assumptions just don't add up. First, this bill will not result in 32 million more people being insured. Census data puts the number of people uninsured at around 45 million. Of those, 12 million are already eligible for medicaid/SCHIP but simply have not enrolled. That brings us to 33 million and the CBO says 24 million of these will remain uninsured by 2019. So we are at 9 million and if we add those already eligible but not covered, we are at 21 million potentially newly insured people."

From CBO: "...The estimate assumes that there would otherwise be about 55 million uninsured people in the United States."

geez, you must be the guy who calculated for us that this bill is actually going to SAVE us money

regarding your 3rd party source (with little credibility i must add) on the AMA's support of this bill is unfavorably looked upon by the physicians......well, we pay member fees to AMA.....think of it as an open bribery if you will......you dont really think that AMA would support this WITHOUT most of us agreeing to it do you?!?

you still didnt address the bottom issue. since 32 million americans will be insured WITHOUT any additional medical supply and staff, how low will the healthcare quality be for EVERYONE after this bill?

finally, going back to the topic. to put this matter in another word is that you can NOT solve a issue of poverty by PRINTING everyone money. hyperinflation carries a hefty price which everyone pays.
in this new bill, we are addressing the issue of healthcare deficiency by providing insurance to 32 million more people. where in this bill have you read that extra hospitals, nurses, etc comes with it?

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by js2000

since we are talking about health care bill's effect on the americans, coverage for the illegal immigrants are outside of this topic. there are 8 million illegal immigrants, and you will find the remaining of the 24 million in the following quote: Even among those eligible for Medicaid, not everyone enrolls. "Compliance is never 100 percent," Henry J. Aaron, an expert on the uninsured from the Brookings Institute, told Shots. Some of them just don't enroll, because they don't know it's available or don't find it necessary. "

We are discussing the bills effect on the American health care system. Since illegal immigrants use the system, they are part of the topic.

huh? i believe it is INAPPROPRIATE for the govt to FORCE these healthy young adult to buy health insurance if he/she chose not to.

Then we agree!

regarding your 3rd party source (with little credibility i must add) on the AMA's support of this bill is unfavorably looked upon by the physicians......well, we pay member fees to AMA.....think of it as an open bribery if you will......you dont really think that AMA would support this WITHOUT most of us agreeing to it do you?!?

Why is the Medicus Group not credible?

My understanding is that the AMA actually represents less than 25% of physicians. They are a professional organization with a political agenda just like the ABA. Do you honestly believe they poll their members before they make a political decision? Were you asked?

FWIW, the Medicus poll results seem to mirror those in an Investors Business Daily poll found here.

you still didnt address the bottom issue. since 32 million americans will be insured WITHOUT any additional medical supply and staff, how low will the healthcare quality be for EVERYONE after this bill?

I believe your premise, that the uninsured currently do not access the health care system, is false. They do access it when they need it. Being insured may change the way in which they access it but not necessarily the frequency.

finally, going back to the topic. to put this matter in another word is that you can NOT solve a issue of poverty by PRINTING everyone money. hyperinflation carries a hefty price which everyone pays.
in this new bill, we are addressing the issue of healthcare deficiency by providing insurance to 32 million more people. where in this bill have you read that extra hospitals, nurses, etc comes with it?

I do not support this law. I simply believe your fear of its result is not necessarily a legitimate one.

[js2000]

Originally Posted by shpirate87

We are discussing the bills effect on the American health care system. Since illegal immigrants use the system, they are part of the topic.



Then we agree!



Why is the Medicus Group not credible?

My understanding is that the AMA actually represents less than 25% of physicians. They are a professional organization with a political agenda just like the ABA. Do you honestly believe they poll their members before they make a political decision? Were you asked?

FWIW, the Medicus poll results seem to mirror those in an Investors Business Daily poll found here.



I believe your premise, that the uninsured currently do not access the health care system, is false. They do access it when they need it. Being insured may change the way in which they access it but not necessarily the frequency.



I do not support this law. I simply believe your fear of its result is not necessarily a legitimate one.

"We are discussing the bills effect on the American health care system. Since illegal immigrants use the system, they are part of the topic."

hmm...i guess i have to show you why illegal immigrants do not pertain to this topic.

since as you've mentioned that illegal immigrants uses our health care, so they are a part of it. then illegal immigrants should be covered too under this. but then who is going to pay for the added cost? the US citizens? if US citizens pay for the illegal immigrants, this would be a positive reinforcement to suggest more illegal immigrants to come. can we tax these people? oh wait...they arent really registered here....see how controversial it gets? get my point? this bill is about the US citizen's health care reform, we are not reforming the healthcare of the illegal immigrants. their health is important but is a separate topic. right now, we all pay for these people. solving the immigration issue comes before solving the illegal immigrants' healthcare well being.

"

Why is the Medicus Group not credible?"

Medicus firm is a broker for hospital staff and supplies.

I would not take anything seriously from Medicus group any more than you would take a poll result seriously from a Real estate broker.

"I believe your premise, that the uninsured currently do not access the health care system, is false."

I believe what you believe is false. people with preexisting conditions such as acute myeloid leukemia often exceeds their $1 million dollar cap and are drop from the insurance. when a chemo shot runs $3500+ each, $1 million is nothing when they need it 3-4x a day. once they are dropped from insurance and become uninsured and comes to the ER, they are given asprin. therefore, the insurance will give them a different level access to the healthcare system. think about it, if these uninsured just use the ER, why dont we extend their healthcare to JUST the ER? obviously, this thing cost WAY MORE THAN YOU THINK.

in medicine, we strive to save the majority of the people but we can not save everyone. we can not afford to sacrifice the majority for the minority. we only have so much healthcare to offer and that amount of health care has just been cut ($500 billion dollar medicare cut).

"I simply believe your fear of its result is not necessarily a legitimate one"

I do not have fears, after all, i am going to be a doctor in less than a year. since i have lived in another country that has this system, i am speaking from experience when i say that patient will be begging to see a doctor. after all, what choices are they left with? their other choice is to wait in line like everyone else. it is unfair to people. if you think my leukemia example sounds sad, wait until you hear people dies while waiting in line. look up canadian, taiwanese, uk system and see if i am exaggerating even one bit.

let me start you with this one:
"Even with all their success in their health care system, Taiwan has suffered some misfortunes. The government is not taking in enough money to cover the services it provides, so it is borrowing money from banks.[11] The revenue base is capped so it does not keep pace with the increase in national income. Premiums are regulated by politicians[12] and they are afraid to raise premiums because of voters. The country is slow at adopting technology except for drugs. There is a low doctor-to-population ratio resulting in too many patients depending on too few doctors. Patients visit the doctor more frequently causing doctors to keep visits short to about 2 to 5 minutes per patient.[13] There is no system to regulate systematic reporting of clinical performance, patient outcomes and adverse events."

[bosstones]

Saw this comment left to a health care plan article on Yahoo News:

"Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel ” pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land."

Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the promised land".

Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of camels and mortgaged the promised land!

I was so depressed last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc . . . I called Lifeline.

Got a call center in Pakistan . I told them I was suicidal. They all got excited and asked if I could drive a truck...."

[rgrovr]

^ EPIC!

[scollins]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Saw this comment left to a health care plan article on Yahoo News:

"Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel ” pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land."

Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the promised land".

Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of camels and mortgaged the promised land!

I was so depressed last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc . . . I called Lifeline.

Got a call center in Pakistan . I told them I was suicidal. They all got excited and asked if I could drive a truck...."

[TMNT]

Originally Posted by bosstones

Saw this comment left to a health care plan article on Yahoo News:

"Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel ” pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the promised land."

Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the promised land".

Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of camels and mortgaged the promised land!

I was so depressed last night thinking about Health Care Plans, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc . . . I called Lifeline.

Got a call center in Pakistan . I told them I was suicidal. They all got excited and asked if I could drive a truck...."

I'll admit, I chucked a little bit.

[shpirate87]

Originally Posted by js2000

[i]
hmm...i guess i have to show you why illegal immigrants do not pertain to this topic.

since as you've mentioned that illegal immigrants uses our health care, so they are a part of it. then illegal immigrants should be covered too under this. but then who is going to pay for the added cost? the US citizens? if US citizens pay for the illegal immigrants, this would be a positive reinforcement to suggest more illegal immigrants to come. can we tax these people? oh wait...they arent really registered here....see how controversial it gets? get my point? this bill is about the US citizen's health care reform, we are not reforming the healthcare of the illegal immigrants. their health is important but is a separate topic. right now, we all pay for these people. solving the immigration issue comes before solving the illegal immigrants' healthcare well being.

The health care system and the strains on it are the same whether or not the person accessing the services is a citizen, a legal resident, or an illegal. Maybe this is the result of your mistaken belief that only people with insurance get medical care.

Medicus firm is a broker for hospital staff and supplies.

I would not take anything seriously from Medicus group any more than you would take a poll result seriously from a Real estate broker.

Many industry groups commission polls that relate to their industry. If you question the polls methodology, fine but to discount it because of who did it rather than for how it was done is ridiculous.

I believe what you believe is false. people with preexisting conditions such as acute myeloid leukemia often exceeds their $1 million dollar cap and are drop from the insurance. when a chemo shot runs $3500+ each, $1 million is nothing when they need it 3-4x a day. once they are dropped from insurance and become uninsured and comes to the ER, they are given asprin. therefore, the insurance will give them a different level access to the healthcare system. think about it, if these uninsured just use the ER, why dont we extend their healthcare to JUST the ER? obviously, this thing cost WAY MORE THAN YOU THINK.

Is it your actual experience that hospitals deny care to cancer patients who do not have insurance? I may not work in a hospital but I personally know of two individuals, one with stomach cancer and another with a brain tumor, who are still receiving care despite one having no insurance when diagnosed and the other who has far exceeded the limits of his policy. They are clearly utilizing more resources than an aspirin.

I do believe there will be rationing but it will be the result, not of an influx of new patients, but by the loss of providers. The only way the government can 'bend the cost curve down' is by limiting payments to providers and denying care.

[ellipsis212]

Originally Posted by Cosmop

It’s going to break my heart when I have to let some of them go.

because of an overhaul of the health care system? i'm fairly certain you're getting ahead of yourself.

[scollins]

Here is a list of the amendments that the GOP Senators proposed in the reconcilliation "fix" bill:
http://republican.senate.gov/healthcare/reconciliation/

I'm curious, which of these do you feel is a "bad" amendment vs. a "good" amendment? The only reason the Democrats voted them all down was so that the bill didn't have to go BACK to the House for another vote. Some of the amendments are junk and don't deal with health care. I personally think that any legislation should strictly deal with only one subject, I hate when they (either party) tacks on unrelated amendments.

Personally, I don't see any reason that registered sex offenders should get ED drugs, so what's wrong with that?

Why are Student Loans and Pell grants part of the health care package?!? Really, WTF?

I particulary like this amendment: http://republican.senate.gov/healthc...ssley.3564.php

In other words members of the federal government, if this overhaul is so awesome, will be required to participate in the Exchange program and not the federal sweetheart plan they currently have. Lead by example comes to mind?

[scollins]

Originally Posted by ellipsis212

because of an overhaul of the health care system? i'm fairly certain you're getting ahead of yourself.

Example:
You have 51 employees, which puts you over the threshold requiring that you provide health care coverage to your employees. Now I don't believe the bill says the employer has to pay for this coverage, in full or even in part, but the expectation of employees is that the employer pay something.

So now the owner/employer has to go out and contact insurance companies to get bids on health care for their 51 employees. This takes time and money. Once the owner/employer decides on a company to provide options (let's say Cigna), they choose 2 different plans to offer. One plan has a premium of $1,000/month for a family of 4 while the other option is only $500/month with much lower benefits (higher co-pays, deductibles, etc.)

Now the employer offers these two plans to their employees, saying "Here you go, these are your two choices through work. One is $1000/mo the other is $500/mo. The company is not paying any of the premium, it is 100% employee-paid."

Do you think employees are going to find that acceptable? Everyone bitches and complains, so the owner/employer says "we can't cover even 50% of the premium without laying off 5 people. Sorry." Awesome choice, eh?

Now, if that owner/employer says "that is just too much work, hassle and of little benefit to my company, it will just be easier to lay off 2 employees and drop below that 50 employee mark." That is a real possibility, and one that I imagine some small businesses will take.

I believe the bill is written in such a way that says if you can get coverage through your employer, you CAN'T buy coverage through the Exchange program. I could be wrong on that however. So in the above example, the employees only have 2 choices, neither of which may be any good.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by scollins

Here is a list of the amendments that the GOP Senators proposed in the reconcilliation "fix" bill:
http://republican.senate.gov/healthcare/reconciliation/

I'm curious, which of these do you feel is a "bad" amendment vs. a "good" amendment? The only reason the Democrats voted them all down was so that the bill didn't have to go BACK to the House for another vote. Some of the amendments are junk and don't deal with health care. I personally think that any legislation should strictly deal with only one subject, I hate when they (either party) tacks on unrelated amendments.

Personally, I don't see any reason that registered sex offenders should get ED drugs, so what's wrong with that?

Why are Student Loans and Pell grants part of the health care package?!? Really, WTF?

I particulary like this amendment: http://republican.senate.gov/healthc...ssley.3564.php

In other words members of the federal government, if this overhaul is so awesome, will be required to participate in the Exchange program and not the federal sweetheart plan they currently have. Lead by example comes to mind?

Its not the question of good vs. bad, it's the question "Why weren't these amendments proposed before the bill passed?".

Because Republicans knew that if they propose it after, it will stall the bill. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, all of these amendments can be introduced at the later date, when the "dust settles", if you will. So this is another obstruction technique. Yes, one can say that Republicans are doing it in good faith, but judging by their track record over the past year, I am having a very hard time believing that they turned so noble all of a sudden.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by solefald

Its not the question of good vs. bad, it's the question "Why weren't these amendments proposed before the bill passed?".

Because Republicans knew that if they propose it after, it will stall the bill. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, all of these amendments can be introduced at the later date, when the "dust settles", if you will. So this is another obstruction technique. Yes, one can say that Republicans are doing it in good faith, but judging by their track record over the past year, I am having a very hard time believing that they turned so noble all of a sudden.

Well, until Scott Brown of MA was seated, the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The original Senate bill was passed during this time frame, so it is quite possible these amendments were offered but killed due to the super majority of the Democrats. The original bill passed on 12/24/09, and Scott Brown was seated on 2/5/10. The Dems had their filibuster-busting majority from 7/9/09 until 2/4/10 in the Senate and have always had the needed majority in the House. If you remember, even with every single GOP House member voting "NO", House legislation passed as long as the Dems came together.

Even Obama said some of the proposed GOP amendments back in February have merit, and I don't believe any of those were included. Those amendments may or may not be the same as the ones offered up today, but I'm betting they are there.

[EDK99]

Originally Posted by scollins

Here is a list of the amendments that the GOP Senators proposed in the reconcilliation "fix" bill:
http://republican.senate.gov/healthcare/reconciliation/

I'm curious, which of these do you feel is a "bad" amendment vs. a "good" amendment? The only reason the Democrats voted them all down was so that the bill didn't have to go BACK to the House for another vote. Some of the amendments are junk and don't deal with health care. I personally think that any legislation should strictly deal with only one subject, I hate when they (either party) tacks on unrelated amendments.

Personally, I don't see any reason that registered sex offenders should get ED drugs, so what's wrong with that?

Why are Student Loans and Pell grants part of the health care package?!? Really, WTF?

I particulary like this amendment: http://republican.senate.gov/healthc...ssley.3564.php

In other words members of the federal government, if this overhaul is so awesome, will be required to participate in the Exchange program and not the federal sweetheart plan they currently have. Lead by example comes to mind?

They rejected them because most of them reduce government control by Opting out of, waving taxes, reducing taxes, blocking taxes or spending cuts, lowering thresholds, Penalty relief and blocking rapist and sex offenders from getting ED medicine.

We should all know by now this bill has absolutely nothing to do with actually improving health care but has all to do with government control.

The first thing this bill does is impose taxes on people. I mean for petes sake they couldn't even get the language right to allow children with pre-existing conditions to get insurance. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Gap-in....html?x=0&.v=1

But I guarantee they sure as hell got all the language right to tax and penalize you to death.

So again this bill is about government control and Rep. Dingell sums it up right here.
http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-aud...rol-the-people

[radix]

Originally Posted by solefald

Its not the question of good vs. bad, it's the question "Why weren't these amendments proposed before the bill passed?".

Because Republicans knew that if they propose it after, it will stall the bill. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, all of these amendments can be introduced at the later date, when the "dust settles", if you will. So this is another obstruction technique. Yes, one can say that Republicans are doing it in good faith, but judging by their track record over the past year, I am having a very hard time believing that they turned so noble all of a sudden.

You're right. It's just more obstruction. There is no good faith on the part of the republicans here.

[Reznick]

I recall one president stating" Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what can you do for your country" .This is the thing that gets me. It seems as though everyone had their mind made up , regardless of the true pros or cons.But it usually boils down to people looking at what THEY will get out of the deal. The concept that someone who makes a good amount of money is somehow evil and the idea that someone who can't afford health care is some how lazy, is absurd. But there are people at both ends of the spectrum. Those who would sell their mother for a buck and those who wouldn't get off the couch for one.
But I still don't see how this bill truly addressed some of the crucial problems involved. As a business owner that supplies my employees with 100% coverage, I fail to see the logic in only having 4 companies to choose from. Why hasn't that been addressed. Why can't I shop past state lines?The "wait and see" logic defies me too. We'll HAVE to wait and see because the people writing the bill don't even know yet .
BTW , 8 yrs ago I was hit on my motorcycle by debris that came flying out of the back of a pick up. Needless to say I was very banged up. I walked away that night, bike destroyed , but released with a busted ankle. I never considered suing , I wanted my bike put back together and that was it. A few yrs after I started having horrible pain in my neck and head. After years of looking for an answer , I was finally sent to doctors specializing in neck trauma. Upon meeting with me, the first question they asked me was "when did I break my neck? C4 & C5 have been cracked, with a chunk of C4 broken in the center pushing against my spinal cord. I also have damage to my occipital nerve, which at the end of April, I will have surgery to have it "decompressed" . For the past 2 yrs I've struggled just to get out of bed. The pain is so intense sometimes I'll just start to throw up from it. I had lost 60 lbs just from the wear on my body. My medical bills so far tally to about 70k. I have a wife and a family that depend on me. I would have never survived if it wasn't for people rallying around me. BUT I don't expect anything for free, my last doctor handed me a strong steroid for the inflammation , and I told him to give them to someone that really needs it for free. I don't live in a mansion, I've sold off a lot of my toys to pay for all of this and I don't know where this is all going to lead me. I can honestly sympathize with some one who has been handed a raw deal and can use the help. But it pisses me off to no end , the people who are looking for something for free.
You can say that it will only really effect those who are making over 250K a year , but we don't really know that yet. What if it boiled down to the government telling you you had to turn in your keys? because nobody really NEEDS to drive a BMW!

[quagmire]

Some of the opponents of the passage are getting ridiculous and it scares me.

You can agree or disagree with the recent healthcare bill all you want, but to turn to violence and threaten to kill the kids and family of the people who voted for it is above disgusting and barbaric. People have zero excuses to act that way. I hope people who are doing this are caught and thrown in jail.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Some of the opponents of the passage are getting ridiculous and it scares me.

You can agree or disagree with the recent healthcare bill all you want, but to turn to violence and threaten to kill the kids and family of the people who voted for it is above disgusting and barbaric. People have zero excuses to act that way. I hope people who are doing this are caught and thrown in jail.

I think that is something that all of us here can agree with!

See, even WE can build a consensus on something!

[EDK99]

I thought this thing was going to lower costs...WTF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/..._t_health_care