Northwest · M
@lovs2smile: you realize that this has nothing to do with Obamacare, right? The Affordable Healthcare Act, aka Obamacare, is not meant to solve the Medicare issue. Goodman, projects to 2075. In the medical field, projecting more than a decade, is not credible.
@Experienceman11: Gas in not 5X more in Europe. It's between 2X and 2.5X
@lovs2smile: That knee break story? someone is pulling your leg. When it's an emergency, such as an injury, then care is provided immediately. You have longer wait times, when a specialist is required, but that's better than dying, because you cannot afford to see a doctor.
Our healthcare system may be great, but only for those who can afford. Medical costs (as in what doctors, hospitals and insurers charge, is way out of control).
@Experienceman11: Gas in not 5X more in Europe. It's between 2X and 2.5X
@lovs2smile: That knee break story? someone is pulling your leg. When it's an emergency, such as an injury, then care is provided immediately. You have longer wait times, when a specialist is required, but that's better than dying, because you cannot afford to see a doctor.
Our healthcare system may be great, but only for those who can afford. Medical costs (as in what doctors, hospitals and insurers charge, is way out of control).
Experienceman11 · 61-69, M
Northwest · M
@loves2smile: On the contrary, you're finally showing where you're getting your information from, and it also tells me that if indeed you read HR 3200, then you made a conscious decision, to forget everything you read, and go with the tea party's "assessment", word by word.
False. This section prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against persons when issuing coverage, and has nothing to do with government subsidized coverage to illegal immigrants. The bill explicitly states that no Federal payments will be used for affordability credits for
illegal immigrants. (P. 143, sec. 246). Only those who read the tea party's claims, and do not check the actual bill, believe that. No wonder you parroted that Sarah Palin claim about death panels.
This section says nothing about a National ID health card or accessing your personal financial information. This section promotes administrative simplification- for example, being able to look up your insurance coverage and determine how much you will pay and which provider your insurance will accept at the point of service. This saves money and gives you, the consumer, information about what you will owe at the front end, rather than being denied or getting a surprise bill from your insurance
company weeks after your treatment. (to cover page 58)
It also encourages the development of standards to encourage electronic payments between providers and insurance companies. Administrative simplification measures like these save billions of dollars. Nothing will give the government access to your bank account. (to cover page 59)
This is what MUST be done, to insure that the exchange works, and to reduce or eliminate paperwork, once coverage beings. This is called doing the job EFFICIENTLY and in that, the ACA, proves to be far superior to the paper-based system that existed before, where people waited and waited for snail mail.
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
Yes, this is exactly what it says. This is a technical wording to ensure appropriate function of the tax under the tax code. If you don't like the language, then complain to the IRS, as this is the IRS's doing, and has nothing to do with healthcare. This is why I use a CPA for my taxes.
This still is part of the SGR adjustment- which applies to all specialties. Providers and AMA are very strong supporters of this. I don't see anything wrong with this provision.
You're slacking. You forgot to copy the "issues" on page 253, lines 10-18 (non-issues, really).
This is the opposite of rationing, and has nothing to do with a patient's age. Read it, don't simply read the Tea Party's conclusion. This section allows Medicare to pay cancer hospitals more if they are incurring higher costs.
I'll help you out a little here. You're talking specifically about lines 21-25 (317-318) and (321 2-13).
This prohibits expansion of physician-owned hospitals because they often drive up costs, duplicate health services, drain resources from community hospitals, and provide perverse incentives for doctors to self-refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in to perform procedures. For example, if a doctor self-refers you for a heart operation, he makes money on the procedure and the hospital he owns makes money too.
Physician-owned hospitals can apply for an exception to expand- and input of the community they serve is required to determine how valuable the hospital is to the patients they serve. Any and every community group or individual citizen will be allowed input into this process.
There is no mandate for this sort of counseling. The only mandate is that Medicare must pay for the consultation between patients and practitioners to discuss plans for end-of-life care. These are important individual decisions that take time and consideration, and AARP supports inclusion of this planning provision. Why does the AARP support it? because they represent retired people, and have been dealing with these issues for decades. Of course the tea party wants to make an issue out of it.
In your rush to copy and paste, you forgot lines 1-9 and 10-12. I'll summarize:
This section of H.R. 3200 says:
1 “(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
2 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.
4 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
5 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
6 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
7 the treatment of that individual that—
8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
9 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional
The key in this is line 8 which says that any end of life order produced through consultation with your physician will be signed and approved by you and your doctor, not the government, and as stated above the government will not dictate what is contained in such an order. The bill specifies which categories of licensed health care professionals can write an end of life order but not which specific doctor - you can still choose your own doctor.
Are you serious? You copied and pasted from a Tea Party web site? You want to know why my answer was ready for you? Because I've seen the EXACT same language, you posted here, on Tea Party and other websites. This was published in early 2010, and you're posting it VERBATIM. Have you heard of the Internet? Really?
So? What's this got to do with HR 3200? If you want to reform COngress, let's pick up the conversation in another post.
Have you had enough?
PS: Here's the link to the actual bill: http://bit.ly/2bN1Xxa
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
False. This section prohibits insurance companies from discriminating against persons when issuing coverage, and has nothing to do with government subsidized coverage to illegal immigrants. The bill explicitly states that no Federal payments will be used for affordability credits for
illegal immigrants. (P. 143, sec. 246). Only those who read the tea party's claims, and do not check the actual bill, believe that. No wonder you parroted that Sarah Palin claim about death panels.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
This section says nothing about a National ID health card or accessing your personal financial information. This section promotes administrative simplification- for example, being able to look up your insurance coverage and determine how much you will pay and which provider your insurance will accept at the point of service. This saves money and gives you, the consumer, information about what you will owe at the front end, rather than being denied or getting a surprise bill from your insurance
company weeks after your treatment. (to cover page 58)
It also encourages the development of standards to encourage electronic payments between providers and insurance companies. Administrative simplification measures like these save billions of dollars. Nothing will give the government access to your bank account. (to cover page 59)
This is what MUST be done, to insure that the exchange works, and to reduce or eliminate paperwork, once coverage beings. This is called doing the job EFFICIENTLY and in that, the ACA, proves to be far superior to the paper-based system that existed before, where people waited and waited for snail mail.
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)
Yes, this is exactly what it says. This is a technical wording to ensure appropriate function of the tax under the tax code. If you don't like the language, then complain to the IRS, as this is the IRS's doing, and has nothing to do with healthcare. This is why I use a CPA for my taxes.
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors' fees.
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors' fees.
This still is part of the SGR adjustment- which applies to all specialties. Providers and AMA are very strong supporters of this. I don't see anything wrong with this provision.
You're slacking. You forgot to copy the "issues" on page 253, lines 10-18 (non-issues, really).
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient's age.
according to the patient's age.
This is the opposite of rationing, and has nothing to do with a patient's age. Read it, don't simply read the Tea Party's conclusion. This section allows Medicare to pay cancer hospitals more if they are incurring higher costs.
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.
I'll help you out a little here. You're talking specifically about lines 21-25 (317-318) and (321 2-13).
This prohibits expansion of physician-owned hospitals because they often drive up costs, duplicate health services, drain resources from community hospitals, and provide perverse incentives for doctors to self-refer patients to hospitals they have a stake in to perform procedures. For example, if a doctor self-refers you for a heart operation, he makes money on the procedure and the hospital he owns makes money too.
Physician-owned hospitals can apply for an exception to expand- and input of the community they serve is required to determine how valuable the hospital is to the patients they serve. Any and every community group or individual citizen will be allowed input into this process.
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five
years. (Death counseling..)
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five
years. (Death counseling..)
There is no mandate for this sort of counseling. The only mandate is that Medicare must pay for the consultation between patients and practitioners to discuss plans for end-of-life care. These are important individual decisions that take time and consideration, and AARP supports inclusion of this planning provision. Why does the AARP support it? because they represent retired people, and have been dealing with these issues for decades. Of course the tea party wants to make an issue out of it.
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
In your rush to copy and paste, you forgot lines 1-9 and 10-12. I'll summarize:
This section of H.R. 3200 says:
1 “(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
2 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.
4 ‘‘(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order
5 regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect
6 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
7 the treatment of that individual that—
8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
9 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional
The key in this is line 8 which says that any end of life order produced through consultation with your physician will be signed and approved by you and your doctor, not the government, and as stated above the government will not dictate what is contained in such an order. The bill specifies which categories of licensed health care professionals can write an end of life order but not which specific doctor - you can still choose your own doctor.
HAD ENOUGH?
Are you serious? You copied and pasted from a Tea Party web site? You want to know why my answer was ready for you? Because I've seen the EXACT same language, you posted here, on Tea Party and other websites. This was published in early 2010, and you're posting it VERBATIM. Have you heard of the Internet? Really?
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
So? What's this got to do with HR 3200? If you want to reform COngress, let's pick up the conversation in another post.
Have you had enough?
PS: Here's the link to the actual bill: http://bit.ly/2bN1Xxa
lov2smile · 36-40, F
Hello Northwest,
Well, I guess you already know the answer to your question, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it off the table.
1) Sorry, The government IS inept. Name one government department run efficiently. (BTW that's a repeat of my question to you that you either overlooked or ignored and didn't answer)
2) Having Health insurance is not the same as getting good health care.
In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician. Specifically for the reasons stated above. The government will pay doctors and hospital less and less every year.
3 ) States already are struggling under huge budget deficits from their existing Medicaid programs. Since states lose federal funding if they adjust their Medicaid eligibility guidelines, their only option for reducing deficits is to cut already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates
4) Physicians already are reluctant to treat Medicaid patients under current rates that are a fraction of private and Medicare rates. Cutting reimbursements will exacerbate the physician-access problem and could lead to closures of so-called "safety-net" hospitals that care for many of the poor and uninsured. These hospitals have long depended on federal Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to offset the cost of caring for the uninsured. But the ACA severely cuts DSH payments on the assumption that the uninsured will gain either Medicaid or private insurance. If large numbers of patients remain uninsured, the financial difficulties of safety-net hospitals will be compounded by their obligation to provide uncompensated care.
5) If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Employers will drop millions from health care plans as Obamacare premiums spike, (CBO projects), because it will be cheaper to let the government supply their employees healthcare.
6) Ah yes, the proverbial death panel. Silly me.
A quote from Harry Reid: "Seniors are going to have to learn to accept the inevitable"
Oh, guess what, congress has their own insurance...It's not the same as ours, now is it...WHY???
I could go on and on and you would get tired of reading and it appears your mind is made up.
BUT, if you really have an open mind, do some research. Read the online version of the ACA
Well, I guess you already know the answer to your question, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it off the table.
1) Sorry, The government IS inept. Name one government department run efficiently. (BTW that's a repeat of my question to you that you either overlooked or ignored and didn't answer)
2) Having Health insurance is not the same as getting good health care.
In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician. Specifically for the reasons stated above. The government will pay doctors and hospital less and less every year.
3 ) States already are struggling under huge budget deficits from their existing Medicaid programs. Since states lose federal funding if they adjust their Medicaid eligibility guidelines, their only option for reducing deficits is to cut already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates
4) Physicians already are reluctant to treat Medicaid patients under current rates that are a fraction of private and Medicare rates. Cutting reimbursements will exacerbate the physician-access problem and could lead to closures of so-called "safety-net" hospitals that care for many of the poor and uninsured. These hospitals have long depended on federal Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to offset the cost of caring for the uninsured. But the ACA severely cuts DSH payments on the assumption that the uninsured will gain either Medicaid or private insurance. If large numbers of patients remain uninsured, the financial difficulties of safety-net hospitals will be compounded by their obligation to provide uncompensated care.
5) If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Employers will drop millions from health care plans as Obamacare premiums spike, (CBO projects), because it will be cheaper to let the government supply their employees healthcare.
6) Ah yes, the proverbial death panel. Silly me.
A quote from Harry Reid: "Seniors are going to have to learn to accept the inevitable"
Oh, guess what, congress has their own insurance...It's not the same as ours, now is it...WHY???
I could go on and on and you would get tired of reading and it appears your mind is made up.
BUT, if you really have an open mind, do some research. Read the online version of the ACA
Northwest · M
Well, I guess you already know the answer to your question, otherwise you wouldn't have taken it off the table.
Huh? I don't know what you're referring to.
1) Sorry, The government IS inept. Name one government department run efficiently. (BTW that's a repeat of my question to you that you either overlooked or ignored and didn't answer)
That, and $4.95, will get you a Chai Latte at Starbucks. What does this even mean. I asked the question, which is what you specifically have against the ACA, and you're trying to turn it into a "government is inept" strawman. I think I will not take that detour.
2) Having Health insurance is not the same as getting good health care. In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician. Specifically for the reasons stated above. The government will pay doctors and hospital less and less every year.
You seem to be under the impression, that the government is providing insurance. This is not the case, and this is the most common misconception for those who oppose the ACA.
Medicade and Medicare, were not invented by the ACA. They have been around, for decades, and our taxes directly pays for them. That, however is NOT ACA. Medicade and Medicare will continue to have a life of their own, and are dealt with, regardless of what happens to the ACA.
3 ) States already are struggling under huge budget deficits from their existing Medicaid programs. Since states lose federal funding if they adjust their Medicaid eligibility guidelines, their only option for reducing deficits is to cut already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates
I am not sure what you're trying to say with this. Are you saying that expanding basic medical coverage, to those who are too poor to afford it, is a bad thing?
4) Physicians already are reluctant to treat Medicaid patients under current rates that are a fraction of private and Medicare rates. Cutting reimbursements will exacerbate the physician-access problem and could lead to closures of so-called "safety-net" hospitals that care for many of the poor and uninsured. These hospitals have long depended on federal Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to offset the cost of caring for the uninsured. But the ACA severely cuts DSH payments on the assumption that the uninsured will gain either Medicaid or private insurance. If large numbers of patients remain uninsured, the financial difficulties of safety-net hospitals will be compounded by their obligation to provide uncompensated care.
The objective, is to expand insurance, so you will not have millions of uninsured people. I don't know how this is bad. ACA did not go far enough to completely resolve this problem. Healthcare should be a universal right, and not only for those who can afford it.
5) If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Employers will drop millions from health care plans as Obamacare premiums spike, (CBO projects), because it will be cheaper to let the government supply their employees healthcare.
Here's that sentence again. "government supplying healthcare". How do you think, that the government, through ACA, provides healthcare? This would be the case, if we have a single payer system, but we don't. ACA is a watered down version, of what should have been implemented.
The only thing the ACA does, is create these exchanges, where insurers, NOT the government, can "present" their plans to the public. The insurers are all private companies. The only thing the ACA forces them to do, is drop the existing conditions clause.
6) Ah yes, the proverbial death panel. Silly me. A quote from Harry Reid: "Seniors are going to have to learn to accept the inevitable"
Really? You still believe Sarah Palin? There is no death panel. We do not have a single payer system. It's the same ole, and nothing has changed. All providers are private and they decide on their own. The government does not have a death panel.
Where do you get your information from?
Oh, guess what, congress has their own insurance...It's not the same as ours, now is it...WHY???
And this is the ACA's fault? how?
I could go on and on and you would get tired of reading and it appears your mind is made up.
I'm sure you could, but based on this sample, what you presented here, is 2008 elections rhetoric. You seem to believe that the ACA puts the government in the business of insuring people. It does not. The insurers are still the same, greedy, private companies. All the ACA does, is "organize" how people can go to one place, to get information about how to get insured, because the law now says, that I must get insurance. That's it.
BUT, if you really have an open mind, do some research. Read the online version of the ACA
Perhaps you can take a dose of your own prescription?
lov2smile · 36-40, F
Northwest,
First of all, you still haven't named a government agency run efficiently.
Secondly, you are naive to believe the government is not running the healthcare industry and providing insurance through bureaucratic red tape and overburden government regulations and bureaurocacy once obamacare is fully implemented.
However, you seem to be having trouble reading my post so I guess it would be too much to ask you to read the affordable healthcare act online
Instead of splitting hairs of what I have researched and typed....READ it and LEARN.
BTW your cute little story about sex in high school doesn't cut it.
Pregnancy among school age teenagers is at the highest level in history.
First of all, you still haven't named a government agency run efficiently.
Secondly, you are naive to believe the government is not running the healthcare industry and providing insurance through bureaucratic red tape and overburden government regulations and bureaurocacy once obamacare is fully implemented.
However, you seem to be having trouble reading my post so I guess it would be too much to ask you to read the affordable healthcare act online
Instead of splitting hairs of what I have researched and typed....READ it and LEARN.
BTW your cute little story about sex in high school doesn't cut it.
Pregnancy among school age teenagers is at the highest level in history.
Northwest · M
@lov2smile:
Why would I need to name a government agency that's run efficiently? The topic of discussion is the ACA. You said that you had a problem with it, and I asked what your specific issues were. What you listed are either not related to ACA, or you incorrectly attribute them to the ACA.
Let's take, for instance, your claim about "death panels". This is NOT part of ACA. This was a slogan, launched by Sarah Palin, 8 years ago! It's still untrue today, as it was 8 years ago.
Even when I tried to be light hearted about it, you replied with something that you invented.
"Pregnancy among school age teenagers is at the highest level in our history"
Absolutely wrong. In fact, pregnancy rates were cut by 50% since 1990. Here's the link: http://bit.ly/2bKSmEs
You also keep saying that I am naive. Stay clear of personal attacks, because you have yet to provide a single piece of factual information.
This is not about splitting hairs, it's about you being 100% wrong, on every single thing you posted. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what ACA is, and you're just pulling things, from a Presidential campaign, 8 years ago. These are not facts.
As to government run agencies, I get tired of people, who have no clue, throwing it out there. Efficient? compared to what? There is no equivalency, period!
Let's take DSHS for instance. What private agency do you want to compare it to? Pick one, go ahead. When you get to a certain size, any organization, is going to have inefficiencies, and it's a full time job, for a lot of people, to continue looking for solutions. Enough with the slogans.
Why would I need to name a government agency that's run efficiently? The topic of discussion is the ACA. You said that you had a problem with it, and I asked what your specific issues were. What you listed are either not related to ACA, or you incorrectly attribute them to the ACA.
Let's take, for instance, your claim about "death panels". This is NOT part of ACA. This was a slogan, launched by Sarah Palin, 8 years ago! It's still untrue today, as it was 8 years ago.
Even when I tried to be light hearted about it, you replied with something that you invented.
"Pregnancy among school age teenagers is at the highest level in our history"
Absolutely wrong. In fact, pregnancy rates were cut by 50% since 1990. Here's the link: http://bit.ly/2bKSmEs
You also keep saying that I am naive. Stay clear of personal attacks, because you have yet to provide a single piece of factual information.
This is not about splitting hairs, it's about you being 100% wrong, on every single thing you posted. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what ACA is, and you're just pulling things, from a Presidential campaign, 8 years ago. These are not facts.
As to government run agencies, I get tired of people, who have no clue, throwing it out there. Efficient? compared to what? There is no equivalency, period!
Let's take DSHS for instance. What private agency do you want to compare it to? Pick one, go ahead. When you get to a certain size, any organization, is going to have inefficiencies, and it's a full time job, for a lot of people, to continue looking for solutions. Enough with the slogans.
Northwest · M
Are you honestly trying to tell me, or anyone for that matter, that the ACA is not run by the government? Quite honestly, I'm trying to be kind by calling you naive.
Because if you are not naive, you are trying to deceive.
Because if you are not naive, you are trying to deceive.
This is not even part of the discussion. You said that ObamaCare is bad, and I asked you to tell me, specifically, what's wrong with it.
It seems as if the only solid thing you can come up with, is that it's run by the government. As all the other arguments you brought up, are either propaganda, or outright falsehood.
I have a pretty good grasp of the law.[/qupte]
[quote]Having Health insurance is not the same as getting good health care. In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician. Specifically for the reasons stated above. The government will pay doctors and hospital less and less every year.
[quote]Having Health insurance is not the same as getting good health care. In fact, it doesn't matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician. Specifically for the reasons stated above. The government will pay doctors and hospital less and less every year.
Having health insurance is not the same as getting good insurance. This has ALWAYS been the case. ACA has nothing to do with it. This was true during the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama.
It is absolutely FALSE, that "most will have difficulty finidng a Physician". This is NOT a side effect of the Obama plan. It is the insurance plan, that the individual has, that determines the doctors who are part of the network, and the out of network policies.
Also, insurance providers pay doctors and hospitals, not the government. CMS is something different, but you're mixing these things up.
CMS is NOT an ACA side thing. It's been there, long before ACA.
Employers will drop millions from health care plans as Obamacare premiums spike
More falsehood, and failure to grasp the simpe concept, that the government is NOT providing health insurance. It is providing an Exchange. That's it. It also offers individual states the option to have their own exchanges.
Every single one of the insurance companies, that make up the Exchanges, is a PRIVATE company. The government DOES NOT run any of these companies.
It does not take two years of reading to grasp this concept. The only thing the law did, was force insurance companies, to accept all applicants, who can afford a particular plan.
The other thing ACA does, is provide a place, where low-income eligibility, can be determined faster.
Ah yes, the proverbial death panel. Silly me.
Definition of proverbial: commonly spoken of : widely known
and then, in another post, you say:
BTW Nice Try on trying to diminish my credibility by tying Sarah Palin's name to your post. Although the word "Death Panel" is not used, certain patients over 70 years old will not receive the same care that would be afforded before obamacare was put into effect.
So, then, you acknowledge, that the "death panel" thing, is not really commonly spoken of. Well, because it does not exist.
Who talked about it, and made it seem as if it was real? Sarah Palin. 8 Years ago. So, if you're not parroting Sarah Palin, then congratulations, you achieved her status, all on your own.
And you also continue to make the same false assertion: that 70 years old will not receive the same care that would be afforded before ACA.
So called death panels, or treatment guidelines, have been around ever since Insurance companies started to exist. Insurance companies get to decide what's an acceptable treatment. This has ALWAYS been the case.
The fact that you dispense these "truths" so easily, when they're falsehood, is alarming.
It's like your claim that "Pregnancy among school age teenagers is at the highest level in history."
Another falsehood. Teenage pregnancy peaked in 1990, and has since dropped 55%.
Any other falsehood you care to spread?
I have problems with ACA, and I can state them clearly, without inventing things.
ACA is an embarrassment. Outside of removing the pre-existing, and gender discrimination clauses, it kept the system AS IS. Not a single friggin change. A single payer system, similar to what they have in Canada, is what we should shoot for.
lov2smile · 36-40, F
Northwest,
You're not going to like this....
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors' fees.
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient's age.
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five
years. (Death counseling..)
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH?
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
You're not going to like this....
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to
all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make
electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the
government) for all union members, union retirees and for
community organizations (such as the Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section
will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their
right mind come up with that?)
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all
doctors' fees.
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care
according to the patient's age.
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an
exception.
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care
planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be
required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five
years. (Death counseling..)
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH?
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already
exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded
private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on
our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick
'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."
lov2smile · 36-40, F
Northwest,
Are you honestly trying to tell me, or anyone for that matter, that the ACA is not run by the government? Quite honestly, I'm trying to be kind by calling you naive.
Because if you are not naive, you are trying to deceive.
My grandparents became very concerned with all the media misinformation being reported about the ACA from BOTH sides of the aisle. I promised I would research as much information about the law and report all that I could.
I read the law in it's entirety. Yes, I read it all....It took me months to accomplish.
That was a couple years ago, unfortunately, I can't recall every detail, But I have a pretty good grasp of the law.
So, for the sake of anyone that might be interested in the truth, I am going back to review certain parts of the law that are concerning to me and most other people in this country. I will report back here.
BTW Nice Try on trying to diminish my credibility by tying Sarah Palin's name to your post.
Although the word "Death Panel" is not used, certain patients over 70 years old will not receive the same care that would be afforded before obamacare was put into effect.
More later.
Are you honestly trying to tell me, or anyone for that matter, that the ACA is not run by the government? Quite honestly, I'm trying to be kind by calling you naive.
Because if you are not naive, you are trying to deceive.
My grandparents became very concerned with all the media misinformation being reported about the ACA from BOTH sides of the aisle. I promised I would research as much information about the law and report all that I could.
I read the law in it's entirety. Yes, I read it all....It took me months to accomplish.
That was a couple years ago, unfortunately, I can't recall every detail, But I have a pretty good grasp of the law.
So, for the sake of anyone that might be interested in the truth, I am going back to review certain parts of the law that are concerning to me and most other people in this country. I will report back here.
BTW Nice Try on trying to diminish my credibility by tying Sarah Palin's name to your post.
Although the word "Death Panel" is not used, certain patients over 70 years old will not receive the same care that would be afforded before obamacare was put into effect.
More later.
lov2smile · 36-40, F
Northwest,
Please don't assume we are so naive that we don't know what is going on in DC
I'm quite sure we all know what obamcare is. If you haven't read it online by now then I'm sure you will experience it real soon.
Name one department in the government run efficiently? Not three, just ONE
I don't want the government running health care.
We have/had the best health care system in the world. As soon as obamacare passed the insurance companies doubled their rates. They knew what was coming.
Check out what dunpender said:
Urgent cases take priority and jump the queue this does put minor cases back. Personally save for hearing aid problems where I have on occasion had to wait 8 weeks I have had very prompt service from the NHS in
8 WEEKS!!! That's ridiculous!!!
Please don't assume we are so naive that we don't know what is going on in DC
I'm quite sure we all know what obamcare is. If you haven't read it online by now then I'm sure you will experience it real soon.
Name one department in the government run efficiently? Not three, just ONE
I don't want the government running health care.
We have/had the best health care system in the world. As soon as obamacare passed the insurance companies doubled their rates. They knew what was coming.
Check out what dunpender said:
Urgent cases take priority and jump the queue this does put minor cases back. Personally save for hearing aid problems where I have on occasion had to wait 8 weeks I have had very prompt service from the NHS in
8 WEEKS!!! That's ridiculous!!!
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Experienceman11 · 61-69, M
Gas is also 5x more and taxes are through the roof.
lov2smile · 36-40, F
dunpender,
I had the opportunity to visit London recently and got into a conversation with a man that broke his knee cap a few years back.
He told me he got on a 6 month waiting list. He bragged that the government was doing a good job by reducing the wait time from one year to six months.
I couldn't believe his story and asked if they gave him pain killers, he said no, but he got lucky, because an opening came up and he only had to wait 4 weeks.
I wouldn't call that "Very Good"
I had the opportunity to visit London recently and got into a conversation with a man that broke his knee cap a few years back.
He told me he got on a 6 month waiting list. He bragged that the government was doing a good job by reducing the wait time from one year to six months.
I couldn't believe his story and asked if they gave him pain killers, he said no, but he got lucky, because an opening came up and he only had to wait 4 weeks.
I wouldn't call that "Very Good"
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
GodQueenSona · F
If we removed all insurance companies from the table (or forced a virtually indistinguishable standard ), we could reduce the costs that occurs from having to deal with so many of 'em. Then capping what companies can charge for medications we probably would be ok tbfh.
It's impossible to reform that system, it ma too much money
It's impossible to reform that system, it ma too much money
GodQueenSona · F
how so? the cap would be based on the amount used in r and d, material/labor costs, and projetected use/demand
lov2smile · 36-40, F
OverdramaticSona,
That's what it currently is now. Or are you saying....
Big Business....BAAAAD
That's what it currently is now. Or are you saying....
Big Business....BAAAAD
GodQueenSona · F
that's not what it is now, it would be set by a 3rd party. But yes big business BAAAAD
Ismiles001 · 61-69, M
Northwest · M
@experienceman11: No. The ratios have been about the same, for at least a couple of decades. Spending-wise, it's about the same, per capita. Europeans learned to live with smaller cars (not too difficult, really), sot hey put less per capita pollution in the atmosphere, and down the drain).
As to ObamaCare, and those who complain about it, when it comes to specifics, it's like High School sex: they talk about it, but don't know what it is, among themselves, they think the others know what it is, so everyone claims that it's a bad thing.
As to ObamaCare, and those who complain about it, when it comes to specifics, it's like High School sex: they talk about it, but don't know what it is, among themselves, they think the others know what it is, so everyone claims that it's a bad thing.
Northwest · M
@lov2smile: Great then, why don't you tell me what you have against ObamaCare. Please don't give me "government is inept", so, specifically, why is ObamaCare bad?
OK, so you said that your British friend told you that he/she broke their knee, and they waited more than 6 months.
Dunpeneder said: "Urgent cases take priority and jump the queue" and this confirms what I said. A broken knee is an urgent case. As I also said, for specialized medicine, sometime it takes longer. Have you tried seeing a specialist in the US? No, 8 weeks for a non-urgent condition, even in the US, is not unusual. Especially when you're going with a specialized insurance program in the US.
OK, so you said that your British friend told you that he/she broke their knee, and they waited more than 6 months.
Dunpeneder said: "Urgent cases take priority and jump the queue" and this confirms what I said. A broken knee is an urgent case. As I also said, for specialized medicine, sometime it takes longer. Have you tried seeing a specialist in the US? No, 8 weeks for a non-urgent condition, even in the US, is not unusual. Especially when you're going with a specialized insurance program in the US.
lov2smile · 36-40, F
Northwest,
Oh for heaven's sake. You asked me what I didn't like about obamacare ACA.
I gave you paragraph after paragraph about the negative ramifications of the law.
That wasn't good enough
Then I give you page and paragraph and you claim it's not legitimate.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
You'll have to learn to accept the facts and stop trying to deceive the American people
Oh for heaven's sake. You asked me what I didn't like about obamacare ACA.
I gave you paragraph after paragraph about the negative ramifications of the law.
That wasn't good enough
Then I give you page and paragraph and you claim it's not legitimate.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
You'll have to learn to accept the facts and stop trying to deceive the American people
Northwest · M
Deceive the American people? Notice that I provided responses and links to every single point.
Your claims came, verbatim from a conservative web site, first published March 2010, they have been refuted, point by point. Read and stop pretending you are doing that research yourself
Your claims came, verbatim from a conservative web site, first published March 2010, they have been refuted, point by point. Read and stop pretending you are doing that research yourself
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sighmeupforthat · 46-50, M
such a loss.... being inundated by policies.
nothing's changed, except the red herring's that pursue it.
nothing's changed, except the red herring's that pursue it.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
Mort
TheeChurchLady · F