Politics

[Rizzophil]

ObamaCare is worse for the insured, the un insured, the hospitals and the skilled rehab facilities. Things are going to get really bad.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Guess who said the following?..."The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US government can't pay its own bills. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit"...Sen. Barack Obama 2006

 

[Irish Houstonian]

ObamaCare is worse for the insured, the un insured, the hospitals and the skilled rehab facilities. Things are going to get really bad.

I think the underemployed have it the worst, though.

Every time a a worker will ask for more hours they won't get it if it means putting them over 30 hours in a particular week. The costs to the employer of having to offer them a qualified plan are just too great.

 

[autry_denson]

I actually am not a fan of the ACA b/c I was hoping for more structural transformation of our health care system that would eat away at the monopoly of the AMA and solve the rising costs problem over the long term.

That said, the comments from the conservatives on here are laughable. This law helps a whole lot of people, fixes glaring problems with our health care system, and is dramatically more efficient than our current system.

The Republican party in the House, with support from leaders in the Senate, are intent on doing permanent damage to our nation in order to take a stand against the president that the nation elected and a law that they don't like. It's gotten to the point where I am truly sickened by the lack of concern for the country being shown by elected, radical ideologues on the far right. The irresponsibility of the right represents the most unpatriotic display of decision-making I have witnessed in my life outside of the foreign policy decisions of our previous president.

 

[connor_in]

 

[phgreek]

I actually am not a fan of the ACA b/c I was hoping for more structural transformation of our health care system that would eat away at the monopoly of the AMA and solve the rising costs problem over the long term.

That said, the comments from the conservatives on here are laughable. This law helps a whole lot of people, fixes glaring problems with our health care system, and is dramatically more efficient than our current system.

The Republican party in the House, with support from leaders in the Senate, are intent on doing permanent damage to our nation in order to take a stand against the president that the nation elected and a law that they don't like. It's gotten to the point where I am truly sickened by the lack of concern for the country being shown by elected, radical ideologues on the far right. The irresponsibility of the right represents the most unpatriotic display of decision-making I have witnessed in my life outside of the foreign policy decisions of our previous president.

Partisan BS...more partisan BS...Partisan based attack...backward facing partisan based attack...

whew, ok now that we are posting in balance here...AT WHAT COST WOULD YOU SAY THIS IS NO LONGER A GOOD IDEA? ANY? That's what I thought.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Talked to a buddy of mine tonight who is a manager for a major hospital network in the US.

He said the impact of Obamacare, along with state cuts to medicaid, is forcing the hospital industry to condense. You will see, or have already seen, major hospital networks buying up local and small hospitals that could not absorb the cuts. But he pointed out, that not in the too distant future, the math no longer works. He predicts that the next great bailout in this country will be hospitals.

Hearing him describe the types of changes they have to accomplish is quite remarkable. Part of me is happy, given that I know there is lots of waste in the system. However, they are shrinking staffs and capacity at a time when volume is about to surge. That fact, doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I actually am not a fan of the ACA b/c I was hoping for more structural transformation of our health care system that would eat away at the monopoly of the AMA and solve the rising costs problem over the long term.

That said, the comments from the conservatives on here are laughable. This law helps a whole lot of people, fixes glaring problems with our health care system, and is dramatically more efficient than our current system.

The Republican party in the House, with support from leaders in the Senate, are intent on doing permanent damage to our nation in order to take a stand against the president that the nation elected and a law that they don't like. It's gotten to the point where I am truly sickened by the lack of concern for the country being shown by elected, radical ideologues on the far right. The irresponsibility of the right represents the most unpatriotic display of decision-making I have witnessed in my life outside of the foreign policy decisions of our previous president.

This law helps a whole lot of people who do a whole lot of nothing. The only people this benefits are the unemployed and the underemployed who can't get more than 30 hours a week. We're incentivizing people to do nothing.

The only aspect of this law that fixes a problem is covering people with pre-existing conditions. Everything else is a disaster. Apparently you didn't read the article above.

Dramatically more efficient? Expanding coverage to millions who don't pay for it, creating massive doctor shortages in the next 10 years, and causing prices to spike isn't efficient. Call me when anyone named Obama or anyone in Congress signs up for this cluster.

Republican opposition to this "law" is heavily supported by American people, not just right wing radicals. 52% of Americans want the law repealed and only 36% supprt it as is. Please bring something to the table other than Rachel Maddow's monologue from last night.

 

[NDFan4Life]

If the ACA is so fantastic, why did Congress exempt themselves from it?

If any Progressive can answer this question, I may change my mind about this pile of horse dung.

Rest assured, I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[potownhero]

I actually am not a fan of the ACA b/c I was hoping for more structural transformation of our health care system that would eat away at the monopoly of the AMA and solve the rising costs problem over the long term.

That said, the comments from the conservatives on here are laughable. This law helps a whole lot of people, fixes glaring problems with our health care system, and is dramatically more efficient than our current system.

The Republican party in the House, with support from leaders in the Senate, are intent on doing permanent damage to our nation in order to take a stand against the president that the nation elected and a law that they don't like. It's gotten to the point where I am truly sickened by the lack of concern for the country being shown by elected, radical ideologues on the far right. The irresponsibility of the right represents the most unpatriotic display of decision-making I have witnessed in my life outside of the foreign policy decisions of our previous president.

In my opinion you're dealing in self-deception.

Maybe your partisan feelings are blinding you? …or, you’re being overly emotional instead of being thoughtful?

Certainly this law may help some people (anytime you give things away, naturally the people who get it for free are helped), but at what cost? Would you agree that many people are hurt by it as well?

1. It will increase average individual market premiums for men by 99% and for women by 62% - Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women - Forbes

2. Doctor Rationing –
Obamacare Doctor Rationing Begins in California - Bloomberg

3. Slower Job Growth –
Will Obamacare Hurt Jobs? It's Already Happening, Poll Finds

4. Hurting Family Caretakers - Unintended Consequences: ACA Provisions Hurts Family Caregivers | Insights | American Action Forum

5. Reduced Hours -
Local governments cutting hours over Obamacare costs

There are a few examples, in case you haven't been paying attention.

To summarize:
1. It’s more expensive to the average person
2. You don’t get to keep you doctor
3. Fewer jobs being created
4. Hurting Family Caregivers
5. Hurting Employees (Including Unions*)

*Are they the Useful Idiots of our day?

 

[Black Irish]

I had to go around work yesterday giving people information on the ACA and our company's role in handling it. They had to sign a form confirming that they received the information. Of course, I was inundated with questions. I just gave them the spiel that HR gave me. A lot of the other stuff I didn't answer either because I didn't know or just didn't want to get into political debates. I just started telling people that if they had more questions to call their congressmen (Delaware's one House member and our 2 senators are all democrats). Let them deal with all the angry and confused questions.

 

[autry_denson]

None of you have the slightest clue about how this law is going to work. It's complicated, and most Americans have no understanding of what is going to change. It is difficult to predict what will happen, but one thing we know is that it won't change much - a tiny fraction of Americans are affected by the law. And yet we have leaders who plan to bring the nation to default in order to thwart the democratic process that led to the bill's passage. It disgusts me. Just completely irresponsible.

 

[Wild Bill]

None of you have the slightest clue about how this law is going to work. It's complicated, and most Americans have no understanding of what is going to change. It is difficult to predict what will happen, but one thing we know is that it won't change much - a tiny fraction of Americans are affected by the law. And yet we have leaders who plan to bring the nation to default in order to thwart the democratic process that led to the bill's passage. It disgusts me. Just completely irresponsible.

None of us have the slightest clue how the law will work, but you know it won't change much. Please enlighten us all.

 

[potownhero]

None of us have the slightest clue how the law will work, but you know it won't change much. Please enlighten us all.

It's even more outlandish than that -

Per Autry_Denson: "This law helps a whole lot of people, fixes glaring problems with our health care system, and is dramatically more efficient than our current system."

...but it won't change much.

Great consistency.

Autry, you should finish this debate with yourself and yourself before casting aspersions on others and their position.

And I mean this sincerely; if you have a personality disorder, my apologies - but maybe you shouldn't weigh in on topics about which you don't have the capacity to fully think through.

 

[connor_in]

None of you have the slightest clue about how this law is going to work. It's complicated, and most Americans have no understanding of what is going to change. It is difficult to predict what will happen, but one thing we know is that it won't change much - a tiny fraction of Americans are affected by the law. And yet we have leaders who plan to bring the nation to default in order to thwart the democratic process that led to the bill's passage. It disgusts me. Just completely irresponsible.

Question: Since the only way to get it to pass was thru a little bit of political wrangling that was entirely legal but outside of the normal way its usually done (Senate passing House's exact language instead of Senate version, then compromised in committee and presented to both chambers), How is it thwarting the democratic process for the House to pass a continuing resolution to fund the govt but with a caveat? I ask this especially in light of the knowledge that when President Obama was Seantor Obama he actually VOTED AGAINST passage of a continuing resolution to fund the govt at all saying something to the effect that to do it reflected a failure of leadership.

 

[autry_denson]

Let me explain my thoughts a little more so we're clear. The most basic provisions will help lots of people in very obvious ways. Beyond that, we don’t know what’s going to happen.

Its actual implementation is unpredictable, considering that we don’t yet know whether healthy, uninsured individuals will actually comply with the law and how quickly. Right now this group utilizes emergency services when they have a major health problem, which raises everyone’s premiums. If they sign on for insurance, they will lower health care costs for everyone. If they don’t, premiums might not drop. Again, we don’t know exactly how this will play out. But no matter how it plays out, there is no scenario where this could possibly be the calamity that many of you are implying. The changes that are being implemented are complex, but they are not that important for most of the country. The best estimates I’ve seen suggest that the number of people whose health insurance situation will actually change is about 7% of the population.

I get that conservatives don’t like the legislation. The fact that that translates into a willingness to intentionally destabilize the nation’s economy is stunning to me.

Lastly, I don’t have a personality disorder. Some people disagree with you – in fact most Americans disagree with you on the point that I’m making—whether Republicans should shut the government down in order to try to thwart a law that was passed by congress. It doesn’t reflect a personality disorder. But I appreciate your sincerity, it was a nice touch.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

None of us have the slightest clue how the law will work, but you know it won't change much. Please enlighten us all.

Great idea. Please, Autry. I'm gonna get a piece of pie and a cup of coffee for this treat.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Let me explain my thoughts a little more so we're clear. The most basic provisions will help lots of people in very obvious ways. Beyond that, we don’t know what’s going to happen.

Its actual implementation is unpredictable, considering that we don’t yet know whether healthy, uninsured individuals will actually comply with the law and how quickly. Right now this group utilizes emergency services when they have a major health problem, which raises everyone’s premiums. If they sign on for insurance, they will lower health care costs for everyone. If they don’t, premiums might not drop. Again, we don’t know exactly how this will play out. But no matter how it plays out, there is no scenario where this could possibly be the calamity that many of you are implying. The changes that are being implemented are complex, but they are not that important for most of the country. The best estimates I’ve seen suggest that the number of people whose health insurance situation will actually change is about 7% of the population.

I get that conservatives don’t like the legislation. The fact that that translates into a willingness to intentionally destabilize the nation’s economy is stunning to me.

Lastly, I don’t have a personality disorder. Some people disagree with you – in fact most Americans disagree with you on the point that I’m making—whether Republicans should shut the government down in order to try to thwart a law that was passed by congress. It doesn’t reflect a personality disorder. But I appreciate your sincerity, it was a nice touch.

I'm not going to call you a name, but you're out of your mind. You have ignored every article posted on here in the past 48 hours. These are known, proven facts from mutliple outlets. Costs are already spiking.

The House sent a bill to the Senate funding EVERYTHING except obamacare. This is not an attempt to destabilize the nation's economy. Our economy hasn't been stable for a long time lol

 

[autry_denson]

you guys are funny. amazing how this has become the far right's last stand. hopefully this sentiment will drift back to the fringe soon, it's bad for the country.

in the meantime, I'll observe your passionate posts while I try to get some work done...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Autry, there's been about a dozen arguments against this $hitshow just in the past 24 hours on this thread.

Please take one or two and use evidence showing how wrong we are and how wonderful this bill is going to be.

Pasting transcripts from MSNBC and whitehouse.gov doesn't disprove any statements I or others have made here. Please take any number of arguments and disprove it.

Again, there are only 2 groups of people this law helps: people with pre-existing conditions and the unemployed. Everyone else is taking it up the tailpipe.

 

[autry_denson]

breaking news: Republican presidential frontrunner diagnosed with personality disorder:
Christie: It’s ‘irresponsible’ to threaten a government shutdown – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(sorry, trying to get back to work but couldn't help but notice this...)

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

breaking news: Republican presidential frontrunner diagnosed with personality disorder:
Christie: It’s ‘irresponsible’ to threaten a government shutdown – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(sorry, trying to get back to work but couldn't help but notice this...)

That's nice. Let us know when you're ready to join big boy world, take someone's argument, and prove them wrong with facts and evidence. Until you do that, you're really making a fool of yourself on here.

 

[autry_denson]

That's nice. Let us know when you're ready to join big boy world, take someone's argument, and prove them wrong with facts and evidence. Until you do that, you're really making a fool of yourself on here.

absolutely love that you characterize a debate on an irishenvy thread as 'big boy world'! that's fantastic.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

I have a simple question- how is adding 17 trillion to the US credit card going to help the economy that is already on thin ice? I realize the current health care is not perfect however you don't go buy a new Porsche if all your CCs are maxed out and you are late on your mortgage.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

absolutely love that you characterize a debate on an irishenvy thread as 'big boy world'! that's fantastic.

Still waiting for you to take one statement/ argument on this thread and prove why it's wrong. I've got a feeling I'm going to be waiting for a very long time.

Yes, in big boy world, adults present arguments to each other backed with evidence. You refuse to do either. You ignore arguments shown to you and ramble off white house talking points.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I have a simple question- how is adding 17 trillion to the US credit card going to help the economy that is already on thin ice? I realize the current health care is not perfect however you don't go buy a new Porsche if all your CCs are maxed out and you are late on your mortgage.

Haven't you heard? We're in fundamental transformation.

 

[ACamp1900]

I remember some time ago I shared a study that showed that in some states people on welfare 'make' more than entry level teachers/other professionals (I believe that was the topic anyway)... The result??... the study/data was ignored and my intelligence was insulted for bringing it up... I doubt anyone not of the left will get anywhere with this one.

 

[ND NYC]

What Would Jesus Do when it comes to healthcare?

 

[ACamp1900]

What Would Jesus Do when it comes to healthcare?

heal everyone himself... without medical training, compensation or anything of that nature... dude's a baller.

 

[ND NYC]

found an old article that i remmeber reading costs of healhcare when the obamacare debate was raging.
politicinas use "who pays" as the red herring when what REALLY matters is: who sets the costs.



July 26, 2009
Forget Who Pays Medical Bills, It’s Who Sets the Cost By DAVID LEONHARDT

WASHINGTON — Every fight over health care reform is different, and every fight over health care reform is the same.

In 1929, Michael Shadid, a doctor in western Oklahoma, proposed an idea for making medical care affordable to farmers. Rather than pay piecemeal for treatments, farmers would each contribute $50 a year to a cooperative. Dr. Shadid and his colleagues would pay their own salaries and expenses with the aggregate sum, and no farmer’s annual bill for family medical care would exceed $50.

Horrified by the plan, other Oklahoma doctors tried to revoke Dr. Shadid’s license. The conflict was soon duplicated across the country; cooperatives sprang up, and the American Medical Association tried to beat them back. The A.M.A.’s members, as the historian Paul Starr has written, felt threatened because the cooperatives “subjected doctors’ incomes and working conditions to direct control by their clients.”

The issue was clear: Who controls the doctor-patient relationship? That question has been at the core of every big subsequent battle over health care. Should doctors determine not only their patients’ treatment but also their own pay, through the fee-for-service system that has survived since the 1920s? Or should patients have more power in the relationship? And who could claim to act on patients’ behalf, monitoring treatments and bargaining with doctors?

A succession of presidents — from Harry S. Truman to Richard M. Nixon to Bill Clinton — volunteered the government for the role of patients’ advocate, and their grand efforts all failed. Now it is President Obama’s turn to try to remake America’s medical system.

Last week’s back and forth, when Congressional Democrats squabbled and Mr. Obama took his case to the public, highlighted how difficult his task will be. Reform of health care has the potential to threaten profits and incomes that make up one-sixth of the economy. More daunting, perhaps, Americans seem to have great trust in their doctors — more, certainly, than they trust the government on medical matters.

More than three in four Americans are “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with their own care, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. But a substantial majority also say that the health care system needs fundamental change and that rising costs are a serious threat to the economy — a view that economists strongly share.

Thus the political challenge facing any effort at an overhaul: Americans say they want change, but they also want to preserve their own status quo.

The disconnect can be explained partly by the peculiar economics of health care. Because third parties — the government or a private insurer — typically pay the bill, many people miss the fact that the money originally comes from them. They see the benefits of medical care without seeing the costs.But trust in doctors is a factor as well. Even when doctors order costly treatments with serious side effects and little evidence of their being effective, as studies find is common, patients are loath to question the decision. Instead of blaming such treatments for the rising cost of medicine, many people are inclined to blame forces that health economists say are far less important, like greedy insurance companies or onerous malpractice laws.

Mr. Obama is well aware of the public perception. This is why he directs his criticism not at doctors but at insurers and drug companies. In his news conference on Wednesday night, he advocated creating a government panel with the power to begin moving Medicare away from its fee-for-service model and emphasize outcomes instead. But he described it in doctor-friendly terms — as “an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency.”

His rhetorical choices highlight one of the least discussed but most important conflicts in the current health care debate. The fight isn’t just a matter of Democrats vs. Republicans, Blue Dogs vs. liberals or patients vs. insurers. It is also doctors vs. doctors.That’s the same as in Oklahoma in 1929. And what has happened to Dr. Shadid’s model? It has survived. He built a team of doctors who collaborated closely and were not paid based on how many procedures they performed. Today, this description fits the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic (which Mr. Obama visited on Thursday), as well as less-known groups around the country.

Medicare data shows that these groups generally provide less expensive care and appear to deliver better results. Armed with this data, the doctors who run the groups have been lobbying Congress to make their model a bigger part of health reform. Two weeks ago, 13 such groups released a letter saying that recent versions of proposed legislation did not control costs enough.

Their goal is to weaken the fee-for-service system. In its place, doctors might receive a lump-sum payment to treat a patient with a certain condition, based on average costs elsewhere and on what scientific evidence had found to be effective. Hospitals with especially good outcomes might earn bonuses.

Advocates say such a system could ultimately give doctors more control. Rather than having to organize their schedules around the tests and procedures that insurers agree to reimburse, doctors could opt for the treatments they deem most effective. “It’s a lot more accountability, which is why it’s scary for physicians,” said Dr. Mark McClellan, a former head of Medicare under George W. Bush. “But in some ways it’s also more autonomy.”On Tuesday, doctors and hospital executives from 10 cities with below-average cost growth gathered in Washington for a conference called, “How Do They Do That?” They were a diverse lot, only some of whom hailed from providers resembling the Mayo Clinic. While crediting a range of factors for their success, they generally agreed about what ails American medicine.

When Dr. McClellan, who helped organize the conference, asked how many people thought the fee-for-service system was “archaic and fundamentally at odds” with good practice, most hands shot up. In effect, they were siding with Dr. Shadid and against a system that provides incentives for more and more care, regardless of its benefit.

“There are no consequences right now to over-utilization,” Dr. Anthony F. Oliva, chief medical officer of the Guthrie Healthcare System, in northeast Pennsylvania, said later. “If you don’t have consequences, you won’t change the culture. If you don’t have consequences, the people that are killing themselves to control cost are going to say, ‘Why am I doing this?’ ”

It is a message, of course, that a doctor can deliver more easily than anyone else.