Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I've read the bill. The IPAB has some regulatory
> control. It doesn't have the ability to ration
> things.

Yes they do. The fact that they have any say over care is a ration. The only person who should decide what your care should be is your doctor, not Obamacare, not a regulatory board, and certainly not something based on cost estimates. You can bet your ass that if anyone on those boards gets one of the diseases that theyve been rationed they wont be subject to the rations for the care or medicine.

If Obamacare is so great then why did congress make it a point to have themselves exempt from it, because they know it will lead to rations and care will get worse. All you have to do is look at what actually happens in countries that have similar systems, every single one of them has rationed care ours will be no different

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The taxpayer doesnt pay for it, no one does.
> Hospitals have billing plans for people that cant
> pay and they also waive fees for the super poor.
> You get charged so much because thats what
> insurance allows. The poor get lower bills. The
> fastest way to get drug prices lower would be to
> stop having insurance cover them, you would see
> much different pricing if people had to pay out of
> pocket.

The taxpayer does pay for it, to a certain point. Many hospitals are publically funded, so the supplies/costs come from public funds. Most hospitals actually have funds for the poor that come from public money. The taxpayer is somewhat responsible for it. Drug prices are a mess. Medicare Part D was a huge contribution towards that mess.

The poor often do get reduced rates and the like. Sometimes, normal people like you and me get stuck into hospitals for God knows what reason. For example, I have an uncle who's about to become eligible for Medicare. He doesn't have insurance. He suffered a gallstone attack and needed his gallbladder removed. He's over $200,000 in the hole. Healthcare related expenses are a huge cost of bankruptcy. Once you declare personal bankruptcy, you're fucked.

> Exactly, the lack of health care access is a
> complete myth.

Yes, it is. However, it's tough to get good healthcare outside of when you're severely injured or ill if you don't have insurance.

> Im aware, the point was once again its a myth that
> the super rich have access to hospitals that the
> poor dont.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes they do. The fact that they have any say over
> care is a ration. The only person who should
> decide what your care should be is your doctor,
> not Obamacare, not a regulatory board, and
> certainly not something based on cost estimates.
> You can bet your ass that if anyone on those
> boards gets one of the diseases that theyve been
> rationed they wont be subject to the rations for
> the care or medicine.

That's not based in logic at all. Just because a group has some say over a certain thing that people need doesn't make it a ration. The electrical company doesn't ration electricity.

> If Obamacare is so great then why did congress
> make it a point to have themselves exempt from it,
> because they know it will lead to rations and care
> will get worse. All you have to do is look at
> what actually happens in countries that have
> similar systems, every single one of them has
> rationed care ours will be no different

Congress more or less gets federal healthcare. Bethesda is run by the Navy.

Obamacare is well intended, but there were far better ways to solve the problems of healthcare. Personally, I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was amended a number of times.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The taxpayer does pay for it, to a certain point.
> Many hospitals are publically funded, so the
> supplies/costs come from public funds. Most
> hospitals actually have funds for the poor that
> come from public money. The taxpayer is somewhat
> responsible for it. Drug prices are a mess.
> Medicare Part D was a huge contribution towards
> that mess.

So the taxpayer is out 20 bucks maybe 2 or 3 bucks for mass bought supplies like the blood draw needles and the cover to take their temp. The actual cost is the only thing their funds lose out on. Otherwise its just a missed opportunity to make money. As long as they have patients with insurance as well their fine, theres no hospital that has only uninsured patients even in southern cal.

> The poor often do get reduced rates and the like.
> Sometimes, normal people like you and me get stuck
> into hospitals for God knows what reason. For
> example, I have an uncle who's about to become
> eligible for Medicare. He doesn't have insurance.
> He suffered a gallstone attack and needed his
> gallbladder removed. He's over $200,000 in the
> hole. Healthcare related expenses are a huge cost
> of bankruptcy. Once you declare personal
> bankruptcy, you're fucked.

Ive had a similar thing happen to me but I have health insurance. Sorry to hear about your Grandfather, but that in no way affects the system. Its a bad situation for him but things like that dont cost the tax payer or bankrupt a hospital.


> Yes, it is. However, it's tough to get good
> healthcare outside of when you're severely injured
> or ill if you don't have insurance.

And its even harder now that the best primary care doctors are starting to not accept insurance or be out of network. Were seeing that in the DC area already after Obamacare got passed. The ones that still do take insurance often have extremely long waits and are so busy it takes forever to get to see them.

Obamacare has actually limited access to the best doctors to those that can pay out of pocket, not given more access to them.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A rose by any other name... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I don't care about a guy's interpretation; I
> > care
> > > about the actual language of the bill.
> >
> >
> > Then read the fucking bill. Specifically,
> > Sections 3403 and 10320 and follow all of the
> > cross-references.
> >
> > He explains the implications and applications
> of
> > IPAB as well as anything which I why I posted
> it.
> > Same as NICE. Same as how the U.S. Preventive
> > Services Task Force works relative to
> > recommendations for procedures and what ends up
> > being eligible for coverage. Same as how the
> > process works here now for Medicare with the
> > Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
> >
> > You're not actually claiming that the IPAB
> doesn't
> > exist or that's not its function are you?
>
> I've read the bill. The IPAB has some regulatory
> control. It doesn't have the ability to ration
> things.


Yes, it does. Just as the other groups which I mentioned do today in exactly the same way. Whether it is specifically called "rationing," which just isn't going to happen, it is de facto rationing. They are weighing cost against the availability of services for patients. You can argue the merits and morals of doing so, but that is rationing by whatever other name that you want to call it.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's not based in logic at all. Just because a
> group has some say over a certain thing that
> people need doesn't make it a ration. The
> electrical company doesn't ration electricity.

Thats a terrible analogy. The electrical company makes money off you using it. A better one would be the cell phone companies that offer unlimited internet. When you use it to much they slow down your data speed at a certain point so you dont drain the resources. Thats exactly what healthcare boards do. They decide when to cut you off to save money and move onto the next patients.

Them deciding what treatments are acceptable and how things have to be treated is absolutely a ration. One size fits all approaches to medicine are absolutely the worst way medicine can be practiced. Again the only one who knows what the best way to treat you is is your doctor especially if you have a good one. Otherwise theirs no reason to have doctors, all you would need is one to say what you have then you enter the approved treatment process

> Congress more or less gets federal healthcare.
> Bethesda is run by the Navy.

Not really. They can go where ever they want 100% free and have no restrictions on treatments or medicines. They made sure they can still get any healthcare they want, if they choose to go to Bethesda its because thats where they wanted to go.

> Obamacare is well intended, but there were far
> better ways to solve the problems of healthcare.
> Personally, I wouldn't be shocked if the bill was
> amended a number of times.

Its a disaster theres no other way to put it. Their were reforms that could have made sense and improved the system this was not one of them. It was rammed through as fast as they could before the next election while they could.

This is something that should have been done in baby steps to avoid unintended consequences and been studied and discussed heavily, not hear things like Pelosi saying I have to pass it to see what it will do.

There are a few good things in there but the bad far outweighs the good as the bill stands right now

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Its a disaster theres no other way to put it.
> Their were reforms that could have made sense and
> improved the system this was not one of them. It
> was rammed through as fast as they could before
> the next election while they could.
>

Exactly. It wasn't intended to be a good bill. It was intended just as a step toward the goal of universal healthcare. Period.

Even the guy who served as the primary consultant to both Romney and the Obama administration concedes that what was enacted is a complete mess and does little to affect the primary problem - increasing costs. Which nobody really has many good ideas as far as what to do about short of some fairly drastic measures which would completely change the entire healthcare industry.

If you Republicans weren't so morally corrupt or intellectually dishonest. I could have probably brought myself to agree with you on some points. But all I see are contradictions in rhetoric and parroting.

Repubitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you Republicans weren't so morally corrupt or
> intellectually dishonest. I could have probably
> brought myself to agree with you on some points.
> But all I see are contradictions in rhetoric and
> parroting.


I'm not a Republican. Nor a Democrat for that matter. Just realistic.

Anybody who thinks this deal isn't going to be a complete clusterfuck and cost us trillions is smokin some good shit. You Democrats are just as corrupt and dishonest in blindly supporting something purely on a partisan basis that you (a) have no real idea how much of it actually works and (b) support only because it looks something kinda-sorta like universal healthcare and came from Obama.

That all depends on whether increased competition due to set up exchanges,the threat of increased government future regulation and new enacting government regulations stems rising premiums. I believe it will and may even drop premiums as a whole. As it relates to increased costs of those in need of Medicaid coverage. The poverty stricken among us. I think it could also decrease costs through preventive care. Republicans do say that the only reason for rising premiums is because of unpaid for ER visits. We'll see how much money we save as a result. I doubt much money will be saved there in the short term.

Something needs to be done and is being done. Insurance companies, hospitals and doctors can't have field days on people premiums and steal from business and people at will to whatever extent they wish anymore. The emphasis will go from profitability to health care needs where it should be. And for those that don't follow suit in the insurance industry, they may lose business or risk further regulation or even the nationalization of the American health care system and the abolishment of their trade altogether. Resistance is futile and only counter productive to the status quo and those whom oppose reform. Doing so will only lead to more reform at this point.

A rose by any other name... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not a Republican. Nor a Democrat for that
> matter. Just realistic.
>
> Anybody who thinks this deal isn't going to be a
> complete clusterfuck and cost us trillions is
> smokin some good shit. You Democrats are just as
> corrupt and dishonest in blindly supporting
> something purely on a partisan basis that you (a)
> have no real idea how much of it actually works
> and (b) support only because it looks something
> kinda-sorta like universal healthcare and came
> from Obama.

It is rather funny how Republicans are the blind followers yet really nothing that guys been saying has been factually accurate.

It is a shame that it was in fact the Dems who played partisan politics shutting out the GOP in the initial talks because all they cared about was a political victory and sacrificing the future of the country in the process.

Businesses hate the bill, doctors hate the bill, hospitals hate the bill, users will hate the bill, the only people excited are the insurance companies now that costs will be controlled and they just got 30 million new clients. Everyone acts like they made a ton of money before, they didnt but now they will.

Insurance companies making money isnt actually a bad thing anyway. Anything whose business model is basically underwriting disasters or accidents should have a ton of cash on hand to pay out if necessary, or do we want them to use the same model the banks used with loans since that worked out so well. But I digress, Obamacare will do nothing but raise premiums for everyone which a lot of people seem to be too blind to figure out

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That all depends on whether increased competition
> due to set up exchanges,the threat of increased
> government future regulation and new enacting
> government regulations stems rising premiums. I
> believe it will and may even drop premiums as a
> whole. As it relates to increased costs of those
> in need of Medicaid coverage. The poverty
> stricken among us. I think it could also decrease
> costs through preventive care. Republicans do say
> that the only reason for rising premiums is
> because of unpaid for ER visits. We'll see how
> much money we save as a result. I doubt much
> money will be saved there in the short term.
>
> Something needs to be done and is being done.
> Insurance companies, hospitals and doctors can't
> have field days on people premiums and steal from
> business and people at will to whatever extent
> they wish anymore. The emphasis will go from
> profitability to health care needs where it should
> be. And for those that don't follow suit in the
> insurance industry, they may lose business or risk
> further regulation or even the nationalization of
> the American health care system and the
> abolishment of their trade altogether. Resistance
> is futile and only counter productive to the
> status quo and those whom oppose reform. Doing so
> will only lead to more reform at this point.


You're just rattling off talking points.

Nobody serious about it expects overall costs to be lower. Healthcare costs currently are about $2.5 trillion. With Obamacare over the next 10 years they are expected to roughly double to somewhere between about $5.5 - $6 trillion by 2023. From about 18% of GDP to about 21% of GDP. And they are expected to continue to rise beyond that for the foreseeable future.

Nobody serious about it expects that premium costs will decrease. Insurance companies operate and will continue to operate on a cost plus basis. Unless you reduce actual healthcare costs, premiums will continue to rise at about the same rate.

The major cost driver is not uninsured people using the ER. It's mostly demographics due to an aging population. On top of that you're adding tons of people who now have been provided the promise of greater services with no disincentives not to use them into a system for which we already can't support the costs.

All Obamacare really did with respect to costs was to set up a way to subsidize those who can't afford to pay. The costs do not decrease, they simply shift to somebody else who pays on the front end versus the back end. We will either pay that directly though premiums or through increased taxes/debt of some mix thereof.

Rather than listening to ThinkProgress, and the Matt Taibbis, and Krugmans, et. al., and similar partisan bs, you might try, for example, some of the panels of actual experts that CSPAN broadcasts (which are available online) where they talk in great detail about the realities of the healthcare and insurance systems and costs without the political jive (or at least balanced political jive).

The ACA was the product if a bipartisan committee and was in debate for a fuckimg year. Listen you sons of bitches don't lie and make up your own history. Fuck that's irritating? You don't remember John McCain and Obama sitting at a congressional round table discussing how to tackle this problem? No fucking engagement with Republicans. The ACA is the only Republican solution that exists. Remember when Obama told McCain the John, the election is over. That was good. John you old cranky bastard. The election is over. Republicans just because Fox News and Limbaugh propagate it does not make it history mfkers. The ACA was arguably the largest attempt at bipartisanship in American history. This is the thanks you get from irresponsible pukes. You make me sick.

Seriously dude just stop, youre in some MSNBC fantasy world when it comes to facts.

MSNBC, I remember. I'm human I have memory. I remember Max Bacchus and Olympia Snow working out the details and Republican Senators and the president himself in an open debate. A process that took almost a year before a vote. Are we denying history? Do you live by the history the talking heads create rather than you actually witness? They just mouth off man. You can't let that be your historical perspective. You're doing yourself an injustice. Sometimes I don't know whether to embarrass you Republicans or feel sorry for you. It gets gray sometimes. Don't know if its your intentions or if you're just the byproduct of the machine. Whatever it is I'm here to inform you your comments are disingenuous and should be stopped immediately. LoL.

Considering the only truthful thing youve stated so far is that youre disgusted by republicans I will take it as a compliment that you dont agree. Let us know when you want to come back to reality, until you want to deal in fact and not just spew out anything you feel like Gordon BLVD style Im done responding to you

That's probably for the best. Those damn facts, they're stubborn things when confronted by them. Damn you facts!!! I substitute you for an alternative reality. Ah, much better, so much easier this way.

I think I know why Republitard is so annoying about this issue. He clearly does not work, and he is approaching age 26, so he is going to have to come out of the basement, stop eating pop tarts and get off Mom and Dad's insurance plan. The good news is he can go to the healthcare exchange and get an insurance policy, but it is going to be much, much, more expensive than being on Mom and Dad's plan, but he will get a taxpayer assisted subsidy.

Read this. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/02/11/healthcares-pricing-cabal/ Until this is addressed, costs will continue to spiral. The ACA has not addressed the key issues that contribute to uncontrolled costs (the underlying cost and the health of our citizens). Unfortunately, people in the USA will spend 10 hours researching the best value for a TV, but will not do the same for healthcare.

this is hypothetical question because i honestly dont know the answer to it at all.......does obama want to run this country into bankruptcy or is he just a moron puppet?

SteveForbes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read this.
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/02/11/he
> althcares-pricing-cabal/ Until this is
> addressed, costs will continue to spiral. The
> ACA has not addressed the key issues that
> contribute to uncontrolled costs (the underlying
> cost and the health of our citizens).
> Unfortunately, people in the USA will spend 10
> hours researching the best value for a TV, but
> will not do the same for healthcare.