Because of how Obamacare is structured, states give up billions of dollars in federal grants if they keep Medicaid unchanged.

In the first five years of the Affordable Care Act, according to an analysis by the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association, the Old Dominion would forgo receiving $9.9 billion for Medicaid payments to Virginia citizens if it refused to expand the program.

Virginians will pay $10.2 billion in extra taxes because of Obamacare, whether we expand Medicaid or not.

While the expansion of Medicaid has no upper bound on cost to the Commonwealth, and the Feds may need to lower grant amounts in the future, leaving $9.9 billion on the table today is not the answer.

http://socialreader.com/me/channels/82207/content/uLMaR?_p=wpsrTrendOnSlate

10.2 billion - 9.9 billion is 300 million. So we lose 300 billion in money to the feds, yea Obamacare sounds wonderful.

VA hospitals, and more particularly INOVA hospitals already use the awful managed care style of healthcare where a one size fits all approach is used for everyone. It works great if you fall into the 60 or 70 percent that works for but all your left with is praying and long drives to other hospitals if you dont.

OP is right. With huge increases in health care premiums many will not be able to afford health insurance and will have to go on Medicaid


especially if the Fed keeps the rates low and keeps printing mo' money. We already got some nasty Stagflation going on. Notice price increases at grocery store starting in January 2013 and gas ain't cheaper and real estate prices are being inflated again. No not that again. Yes that again

Thanks Barry but not sure Mitt wouldn't have just been totally in the camp of the 1%ers. Please Barry you can still delay implementation till you all get serious about dealing with the debt

frankly i'm seeing the 4 horseman a coming and in the not too distant future if we don't start getting our shit together

The current health care system of this country is the number one constraint on our economy. Without the affordable health care act we are literally going to eat ourselves alive financially with the current insurance based system. Not only that, more and more people will continue to not have access to health care and those with access will have less access for more money. Republicans are hell bent on opposing any necessary reforms for the betterment of our country even that is to its determent. Those whom lack the ability to make a judgment on the credibility of the legislation take their cue from propagandists and then project the non sense. That's what you are seeing reflected here. There are also those whom fear the successes of legislation by this President purely for political purposes. Those are people I call traitors to this country. The Affordable Health Care Act will be enforced as law and Virginia can decide to resist Federal law at the expense of its budget and citizens. We'd be more extreme than Arizona on this issue. That doesn't happen often.

One more thing, you should really start showing the President of the United States of America a shred of respect. If not for him then his office. I don't think this will happen anytime soon seeing as how Republicans think obstruction and failure of America is key to them reacquiring power. Although the most recent election showed that's a failed strategy. Americans are smarter than that. But if they were to re-establish a Republican presidency. Don't expect me to respect the next rich corporate whore you guys steal an election to get in. What goes around comes around.

When did Barry become Barack and why?


ACA sure seems like a nice deal for the Insurance and Pharma and sticks it too old folks on Medicare and individual health insurance and small businesses

and folks who work at like the Wallymart instead of working 39 hours a week part time they'll have to cut them back to 30 hours a week so they won't have to provide health insurance?



should have been baby steps instead a swing for the fences and dismantled the banks too big too fail and not keep the Fed rate at 0% so the same unprosecuted criminals who were in place before could repeat same thing 4 years later and stop printing the money and start making cuts to service the debt

P.R. campaign Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When did Barry become Barack and why?


this alone shows your ignorance



> ACA sure seems like a nice deal for the Insurance
> and Pharma and sticks it too old folks on Medicare
> and individual health insurance and small
> businesses



wrong



> and folks who work at like the Wallymart instead
> of working 39 hours a week part time they'll have
> to cut them back to 30 hours a week so they won't
> have to provide health insurance?



wrong



> should have been baby steps instead a swing for
> the fences and dismantled the banks too big too
> fail and not keep the Fed rate at 0% so the same
> unprosecuted criminals who were in place before
> could repeat same thing 4 years later and stop
> printing the money and start making cuts to
> service the debt


wrong




seriously stop puking out what fox news feeds you

Pure and simple, Obama = good. Anything the republicans do or say = pure evil.

Sad to see so many ignorant and misinformed socialist thinkers on this thread. Wake-up. You all probably work for the government and receive middleclass welfare.

One thing for sure Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pure and simple, FACTS = good. Anything the
> MISINFORMED do or say = pure evil.


FIFY

but i know you blind party fucks do not get it

Poor Boy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP is right. With huge increases in health care


This is why I think having IP hashes would help out this blog. "OP is right?" That is the OP.

I call shenanigans because getting the first four positive agreeing responses never happens on FFU - especially for something as politically charged as this one.

The smart ones will proxy and do other stuff to give the appearance of uniqueness. The level of effort and intelligence required will keep enough of them honest to be worth it... worth it for me I guess since it wouldn't be any effort on my part.

@KopCiller - there aren't as many of them as you think. I'd bet there's only one here.

It's time to take the profit out of healthcare. Nationalize healthcare like every other advanced nation has.

The insurance and hospital racketeers need to be sent packing. Human greed has no place in what is a basic human right in less corrupt countries.

What's a "basic human right"? It used to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Now you want to add healthcare, Obama-phones, education, etc. That which must be paid for by others is not a "right", they're "entitlements". Why the hell do I, as a taxpayer, have to fund what individuals should be providing for themselves? You want healthcare, fine. No one is denying you the right to obtain it at your own expense. I'm paying for mine and do not feel I have to pay for yours as well. Same with phone service, feed, shelter, or educating those damn kids you squeeze out while I'm at work.

Nothing's free. Someone has to pay for all of this and those of us who get off our asses and actually go to work are tired of it.

It's the irresponsible and lazy who need to be sent packing. Starve to death for all I care.

"Other peoples money" is a finite resource.

"seriously stop puking out what fox news feeds you"


ah my wise and oh so smart one I do not watch Fox News. stopped getting cable years ago when most of the programming turned to crap and don't listen to Rush cause he's an arrogant elitist drug addicted bastard who played music on the radio before his current incarnation. What's that movie Andy of Mayberry was in that was directed by the director of On The Water Front. Hey look at me I do it with one brain lobe tied behind my back. Or I read a lot and watch dvd's instead of cable tv..

I formed my conclusions by watching Bill Moyers Journal(yes I'm aware of his agenda but he doesn't knock one over the head with it like the purple people eaters are trying to do these days.) and reading the WaPo and NYT and okay occasionally the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times. I read the last two for financial info and generally stay away from their editorial content.
So up your nose with a rubber nose

Hey you started with the personal attacks my wise liberal friend

you don't have some purple shirts in your collection do you?
Ever hit someone with a closed fist?
It's been years but I have. Of course, nowadays so many cowardly pussies who charge you with assault even if they started it. I don't going looking for a fight but by gawd
I should have been a cowboy. No not the Village People kind but Monte Walsh kind

me I think a pox on the house of most of the bastards

DMEyL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> P.R. campaign Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > When did Barry become Barack and why?
>
>
> this alone shows your ignorance
>
>
>
> > ACA sure seems like a nice deal for the
> Insurance
> > and Pharma and sticks it too old folks on
> Medicare
> > and individual health insurance and small
> > businesses
>
>
>
> wrong
>
>
>
> > and folks who work at like the Wallymart
> instead
> > of working 39 hours a week part time they'll
> have
> > to cut them back to 30 hours a week so they
> won't
> > have to provide health insurance?
>
>
>
> wrong
>
>
>
> > should have been baby steps instead a swing for
> > the fences and dismantled the banks too big too
> > fail and not keep the Fed rate at 0% so the
> same
> > unprosecuted criminals who were in place before
> > could repeat same thing 4 years later and stop
> > printing the money and start making cuts to
> > service the debt
>
>
> wrong
>
>
>
>
> seriously stop puking out what fox news feeds you


Sure comrade. You back the case you make so well. Why are you libards so afraid of Fox News? The one place on TV not towing the party line must be destroyed. All hail the great and wonderful Ozbama. lolz


.
Attachments:

Sucks to be you. Although I strongly supported obamacare I also made sure I was exempted from its provisions. I have a fully taxpayer paid for health care plan that is top of the line.

I'm a very disgruntled conservative not a republican. I'm so far to the right that I'm just to the left of the skinheads[who by the way are neither left nor right wing-they are at the top of the circle in betwwen the two]

Since common sense eludes at least the 65 million Americans who voted for Oblama and there seems to be no hope of having an intelligent conversation with those freaks, I say go for it Virginia, endorse the unaffordable health care act. It will hasten this country's demise.

Unfortunately, we all suffer for the insanity of Oblama supporters. The hope is that once the sting of another failed left wing attempt at creating a utopia sets in, enough of those 65 million will be restored to sanity.

republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The current health care system of this country is
> the number one constraint on our economy. Without
> the affordable health care act we are literally
> going to eat ourselves alive financially with the
> current insurance based system. Not only that,
> more and more people will continue to not have
> access to health care and those with access will
> have less access for more money. Republicans are
> hell bent on opposing any necessary reforms for
> the betterment of our country even that is to its
> determent. Those whom lack the ability to make a
> judgment on the credibility of the legislation
> take their cue from propagandists and then project
> the non sense. That's what you are seeing
> reflected here. There are also those whom fear
> the successes of legislation by this President
> purely for political purposes. Those are people I
> call traitors to this country. The Affordable
> Health Care Act will be enforced as law and
> Virginia can decide to resist Federal law at the
> expense of its budget and citizens. We'd be more
> extreme than Arizona on this issue. That doesn't
> happen often.
>
> One more thing, you should really start showing
> the President of the United States of America a
> shred of respect. If not for him then his office.
> I don't think this will happen anytime soon
> seeing as how Republicans think obstruction and
> failure of America is key to them reacquiring
> power. Although the most recent election showed
> that's a failed strategy. Americans are smarter
> than that. But if they were to re-establish a
> Republican presidency. Don't expect me to respect
> the next rich corporate whore you guys steal an
> election to get in. What goes around comes
> around.

People like you don't understand that while the law provides more access, it does absolutely nothing about what is causing this crisis; the underlying cost of healthcare. Our nation is full of people who don't take care of themeselves and then want to go to the doctor and pay a $10 copay to take care of all the abuse they have done to their body. Imagine if car insurance worked that way, you could never change the oil, drive it in to the ground and then go to the garage and say "fix it, here's my copay." Someone is paying for it, just not you. Insurance companies largely get paid on the transaction or administration of insurance. They could care less if a procedure costs $10 or $1,000, 98% of it goes to the healthcare provider.

Also, you Democrats refuse to put Tort reform on the table. Most doctors will tell you they run lots of test they dont need because they are fearful of getting sued by a lawyer with no caps on the damages. But your friends in Congress won't take it on because all of their supporters are rich lawyers.

Lastly, and here is the big suprise that nobody gets, this law is going to make insurance MORE EXPENSIVE. All of those coming into the system are unhealthy and somebody has to pay for it. Insurance companies, taxes, etc. its all going up. So dont bitch when you see your next insurance premium bill.

I agree with the first part. There is no incentive to take care of yourself when you get free or almost free health care. I go maybe once a year for a checkup and thats it. Meanwhile I know a lard ass who takes maybe fifteen pills a day and refuses to stop eating.

jack not fat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with the first part. There is no incentive
> to take care of yourself when you get free or
> almost free health care. I go maybe once a year
> for a checkup and thats it. Meanwhile I know a
> lard ass who takes maybe fifteen pills a day and
> refuses to stop eating.


There is no incentive to take care of yourself when you get free or almost free health care. o_0

Son, that there may be one of THE MOST STUPID things I have EVER read on this site....................and that's saying a lot.

pic unrelated
Attachments:

sorry did I hit a nerve fatass?

what up obamacare. I'm entitled
Attachments:

There is no incentive to take care of yourself when you get free or almost free health care. o_0

"Son, that there may be one of THE MOST STUPID things I have EVER read on this site....................and that's saying "

I am curious Gordon, why do you say that? I would seriously like to know, because he is absolutely correct. But I am interested in your side of the argument, because as usual, you do not go into any detail.

Gordon Blvd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jack not fat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I agree with the first part. There is no
> incentive
> > to take care of yourself when you get free or
> > almost free health care. I go maybe once a year
> > for a checkup and thats it. Meanwhile I know a
> > lard ass who takes maybe fifteen pills a day
> and
> > refuses to stop eating.
>
>
> There is no incentive to take care of yourself
> when you get free or almost free health care. o_0
>
>
> Son, that there may be one of THE MOST STUPID
> things I have EVER read on this
> site....................and that's saying a lot.
>
> pic unrelated


Gee Gordon, your ability to win friends and influence peeps on FFU is as underwhelming as ever. Being the most hated troll here is quite the accomplishment. The Blvd's must so be proud of their little Gordo and the hate you generate with your every boring post.

lolz

.
Attachments:

Repukes water any reform down with kick backs then call it corrupt. We wanted the Public Option mfkers. This is the Repuke solution we compromised with you fucks on. This is as conservative as it gets outside letting our economy continue to rott you hypocrite sons of bitches. Your nominee Mitt Romney and former Speaker fuck face Newt Gingrich were its first proponents. Do nothing asshole hypocrite bitches. And thats the truth.

republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The current health care system of this country is
> the number one constraint on our economy. Without
> the affordable health care act we are literally
> going to eat ourselves alive financially with the
> current insurance based system. Not only that,
> more and more people will continue to not have
> access to health care and those with access will
> have less access for more money. Republicans are
> hell bent on opposing any necessary reforms for
> the betterment of our country even that is to its
> determent. Those whom lack the ability to make a
> judgment on the credibility of the legislation
> take their cue from propagandists and then project
> the non sense. That's what you are seeing
> reflected here. There are also those whom fear
> the successes of legislation by this President
> purely for political purposes. Those are people I
> call traitors to this country. The Affordable
> Health Care Act will be enforced as law and
> Virginia can decide to resist Federal law at the
> expense of its budget and citizens. We'd be more
> extreme than Arizona on this issue. That doesn't
> happen often.

Not a single statement you just made here is true. Not a single person has ever been denied treatment at an ER when they needed it, in the past the hospital would eat the cost which really wasnt a cost to them anyway. Now the government and taxpayers get to eat a real cost.

Who am I kidding with that garbage you just typed youre immune to facts and critical thinking, the koolaid transformation has been complete in you for quite so time.

So tell me whats in Obamacare then?

Why didnt Pelosi or Connolly or any of the dems bother to read it before they voted on it?

Why are small businesses and medical manufacturing getting killed by the upcoming changes?

The only thing Obamacare did was make the insurance companies more money.

> One more thing, you should really start showing
> the President of the United States of America a
> shred of respect. If not for him then his office.
> I don't think this will happen anytime soon
> seeing as how Republicans think obstruction and
> failure of America is key to them reacquiring
> power. Although the most recent election showed
> that's a failed strategy. Americans are smarter
> than that. But if they were to re-establish a
> Republican presidency. Don't expect me to respect
> the next rich corporate whore you guys steal an
> election to get in. What goes around comes
> around.

Trust me if your the measuring stick for American intelligence we might as well just pack it in were done for.

So in 06 or 07 when conservatives were saying to show respect for Bush you were probably screaming every slur you could think of but now its somehow different.

Doesnt work like that. Dems set the standard and now it should be followed. Or are you now going to give me the Chris Rock crap and say hes our parent?

You have no standards for yourself, only others. That's been made clear. You rambled about some nonsense about Pelosi not reading the bill. Come back when you have some information, not meaningless talking points. As it relates to your point on the supposed affect on "small business." At the most it will cost a business dodging such obligations a 2000 dollar fine a year per full time employee. Those employee's will then receive partially subsidized insurance via a competitive exchange. Hardly a back breaker for any business.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Repukes water any reform down with kick backs then
> call it corrupt. We wanted the Public Option
> mfkers. This is the Repuke solution we compromised
> with you fucks on. This is as conservative as it
> gets outside letting our economy continue to rott
> you hypocrite sons of bitches. Your nominee Mitt
> Romney and former Speaker fuck face Newt Gingrich
> were its first proponents. Do nothing asshole
> hypocrite bitches. And thats the truth.


Wow, compelling. You seem to be coming unhinged at a bunch of stangers on the Interwebz. Seek help homie.

Yep, the quintessential response when you've lost a debate.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no standards for yourself, only others.
> That's been made clear. You rambled about some
> nonsense about Pelosi not reading the bill. Come
> back when you have some information, not
> meaningless talking points. As it relates to your
> point on the supposed affect on "small business."
> At the most it will cost a business dodging such
> obligations a 2000 dollar fine a year per full
> time employee. Those employee's will then receive
> partially subsidized insurance via a competitive
> exchange. Hardly a back breaker for any business.


So its nonsense when she said she has to pass it to see what happenes for what its in it?

Oh right shes a liberal so shes infallible to you.

Just 2 grand an employee for mom and pop stores why didnt you say so we should double that for the greater good. Afterall those businesses were trying to make a profit and profit is evil unless you are a large donor to the democratic party or selling your BS global warming TV station to AL Jazeera.

Like I said if your such an expert I want a detailed list of everything from Obamacare laid out by you not copy and pasted and I want you to go through the whole thing step by step on how this will make anything less expensive and not lead to rationed healthcare.

So far youve just been the gordon blvd of healthcare debates

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have no standards for yourself, only others.
> That's been made clear. You rambled about some
> nonsense about Pelosi not reading the bill. Come
> back when you have some information, not
> meaningless talking points. As it relates to your
> point on the supposed affect on "small business."
> At the most it will cost a business dodging such
> obligations a 2000 dollar fine a year per full
> time employee. Those employee's will then receive
> partially subsidized insurance via a competitive
> exchange. Hardly a back breaker for any business.


"A competitive exchange" What is your definition of "competitive?" It will be competitive only in that it will have different offerors of insurance coverage competing with each other on the exchange. But----and let me know if you want me to send you studies on this------the exchanges will drive up the cost of insurance, especially for small business, when they are implemented. This is a fact, and noone seems to get it. I am in the business and understand this stuff and what it means, you do not. Wait and see......

I don't have the time or resources to re-educate you out of the abyss of Fox News indoctrination. Let me make it simple. The economy is fucked. Healthcare is its biggest strain. Not to mention the well being of our citizens. This was the Republican solution with medicaid support. Be a good American and hope for its success you mongrel.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have the time or resources to re-educate
> you out of the abyss of Fox News indoctrination.

Translation: "I don't have the intellectual prowess to carry on an intelligent conversation so I will toss around a stale talking point about Fox News. Excuse me while I go suck Rachel Maddow's cock."

Yeah, you are a megadouche. And a stupid one at that.

If you actual were familiar with the bill you would know theres no defending that steaming pile of crap that rations healthcare while making it more expensive for everyone.

You seem to have a paranoia about Fox News for some reason.

And if you think the economy is bad now just wait til Obamacare is in full stride.

Obamascare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "A competitive exchange" What is your definition
> of "competitive?" It will be competitive only in
> that it will have different offerors of insurance
> coverage competing with each other on the
> exchange. But----and let me know if you want me
> to send you studies on this------the exchanges
> will drive up the cost of insurance, especially
> for small business, when they are implemented.
> This is a fact, and noone seems to get it. I am
> in the business and understand this stuff and what
> it means, you do not. Wait and see......


It already has increased costs by mandating coverage and the required inclusions.

And the cost for the exchanges (pardon "marketplaces" since exchange doesn't translate well in Spanish) has been increased by +$200 billion in additional subsidies and they haven't even started yet.

Not even counting the increases in taxes coming to support the subsidies since the cost of the program overall has blown up by trillions already.

I don't have paranoia about fox news. I watch the news and absorb that information and recognize its source. I know of the daily talking points memos sent out as directives for propaganda on Fox. Its like when you hear the Parrot of a friend you know. You know whose parrot that is. By the way I'm not impressed by Rachel Maddow. I get very annoyed by some liberal shit too. I hate Pelosi, despise her, I don't support gays in boy scouts. I don't think religious leaders should be barred from inauguration speeches because of positions on homosexuality which are tenants of their faith.

The majority of the state of Texas is uninsured. How do you plan to deal with that? Should we deal with that? If you think we should. This is the Republican plan,deal with it. If this doesn't work the next step is a public option like other western countries. You fee market lovers should be embracing "obamacare."

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The majority of the state of Texas is uninsured.


Another Democrat bullshit lie. It is a huge effing lie that isn't anywhere near the truth. If you are willing to lie about this, something tells me most of your other rants are full of lies as well.

Get back to us when you are willing to be truthful in your posts.

That's right not a majority, 33 percent. The highest percent of any . Five million people of 15 million in Texas alone in insured. Arguably the most conservative state in the union and not a care in the world about this devastating statistic.

http://texmed.mobi/Template.aspx?id=5517

1.2 million children in Texas lack medical care. Its worse than a third world country.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's right not a majority, 33 percent.

At least you admit your lies when called on it. The question is why you lied in the first place.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's right not a majority, 33 percent. The
> highest percent of any . Five million people of 15
> million in Texas alone in insured. Arguably the
> most conservative state in the union and not a
> care in the world about this devastating
> statistic.
>
> http://texmed.mobi/Template.aspx?id=5517


More lies. The link you posted indicates 25% of Texans are uninsured. You are either too stupid or too full of deceit to be trusted on this subject. Your agenda is driven by passion, not facts. You have allowed yourself to become blinded to the truth. In short, you are untrustworthy.

Population

Uninsured

% Uninsured

Rank


United States

186,727,700

41,160,200

22%




California

22,656,500

5,918,700

26%

3


Texas

15,001,7000

4,886,100

33%

1


Florida

11,015,600

3,171,600

29%

2


New York

11,955,700

2,362,700

20%

4



Texas 4,886,100 of 15,001,700 uninsured. 33 percent, are we gonna deny facts now? These are the results you favor. Why deny them?

The funny thing is you are relying on the under age of 19 stats. You are relying on socialized medical coverage to bolster your state. Ironic.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Population
>
> Uninsured
>
> % Uninsured
>
> Rank
>
>
> United States
>
> 186,727,700
>
> 41,160,200
>
> 22%
>
>
>
>
> California
>
> 22,656,500
>
> 5,918,700
>
> 26%
>
> 3
>
>
> Texas
>
> 15,001,7000
>
> 4,886,100
>
> 33%
>
> 1
>
>
> Florida
>
> 11,015,600
>
> 3,171,600
>
> 29%
>
> 2
>
>
> New York
>
> 11,955,700
>
> 2,362,700
>
> 20%
>
> 4
>
>
>
> Texas 4,886,100 of 15,001,700 uninsured. 33
> percent, are we gonna deny facts now? These are
> the results you favor. Why deny them?

That is only the population of those between the age as of 19 and 64. Scroll further down the page.

Thanks for answering the question though. You aren't full of deceit, you are just too stupid to be trusted in this debate. Let the adults have the conversation and you can get back to your wii or cartoons or whatever.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The funny thing is you are relying on the under
> age of 19 stats. You are relying on socialized
> medical coverage to bolster your state. Ironic.


I am relying on total population. The more you look at the numbers and the more you try to explain them, you reveal how unintelligent you are.

Your initial assertion was "a majority of Texans." Now, you won't even include all Texans in your assertions. Don't you see how unintelligent and/or dishonest that makes you look?

I'm on a tablet multi tasking. I never thought this would come down to me telling a right winger not to rely on Medicaid.

Taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's a "basic human right"? It used to be
> "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
> Now you want to add healthcare, Obama-phones,
> education, etc...


Douchebag, my exact words were: "Human greed has no place in what is a basic human right IN LESS CORRUPT COUNTRIES". (emphasis added)

That means healthcare is a basic human right elsewhere, NOT HERE.

Turn Rush off for a few minutes and learn to read.

Polygraph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republitards Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The funny thing is you are relying on the under
> > age of 19 stats. You are relying on socialized
> > medical coverage to bolster your state. Ironic.
>
>
> I am relying on total population. The more you
> look at the numbers and the more you try to
> explain them, you reveal how unintelligent you
> are.
>
> Your initial assertion was "a majority of Texans."
> Now, you won't even include all Texans in your
> assertions. Don't you see how unintelligent
> and/or dishonest that makes you look?


They're also conveniently not mentioning that:

"Foreign Born Residents and Non Citizens in Relation to Uninsured Population

Non-citizens are almost three times as likely to be uninsured as are native US citizens. Over 62 percent of non-citizens went without insurance in 2010, compared to 18.3 percent of US native citizens and 26.2 percent of naturalized citizens. In Texas, 29.3 percent of the uninsured are non-citizens."

Also among the remainder a very high percentage is comprised of new immigrants and transient populations.

And on a pure numbers basis versus percentage CA blows TX away by +3 million people.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm on a tablet multi tasking. I never thought
> this would come down to me telling a right winger
> not to rely on Medicaid.


Maybe you should stick to one task. You aren't succeeding at either. My iPad didn't prevent me from seeing all the data. I am relying on data that directly refutes your misinformation campaign. You can't succeed with the facts so you have to resort to lies. You are pissed I called you on it.

Everyone gets free health care. How do I pay for it? I just print up more money, whats the big deal? Surprised no one thought of this sooner.

If the Affordable Health Act wasn't passed we would all be paying TRIPLE the insurance rates right now. Insurance companies were simply dropping people when they had to start paying out. That was BULLSHIT!

Health insurance companies are the biggest con artists of all Americans. It was time somebody had the balls in Congress to regulate health insurance companies.

barryland Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone gets free health care. How do I pay for
> it? I just print up more money, whats the big
> deal? Surprised no one thought of this sooner.

Shouldn't you be getting drunk and shooting beer cans right now?

You obviously have never read the Affordable Health Care Act or know how the act affects your taxes. Your comments are useless, go back to hanging out with your friends that never graduated high school.

Dr No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Affordable Health Act wasn't passed we
> would all be paying TRIPLE the insurance rates
> right now. Insurance companies were simply
> dropping people when they had to start paying out.
> That was BULLSHIT!
>
> Health insurance companies are the biggest con
> artists of all Americans. It was time somebody
> had the balls in Congress to regulate health
> insurance companies.


You scare me. Simply have no idea what you are talking about. Ok Dr. NO, please tell me what part of PPACA helped lower health insurance rates? Be very specific. The answer is nothing. This law will cause rates to go up. It is simple math of adding a lot of sicker people to the insurance pool plus the associated taxes that need to be paid by someone (hint: they all get passed on to the consumer). So remember when you reply, to be very specific to support your argument.

Oh and one last thing, if you took away the profit that an insurance company makes, how much would your premiums go down? And, if you took the insurance companies away, how would our government do running that program. Would it be a model of efficiency and innovation?

Dr No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Affordable Health Act wasn't passed we
> would all be paying TRIPLE the insurance rates
> right now. Insurance companies were simply
> dropping people when they had to start paying out.
> That was BULLSHIT!
>
> Health insurance companies are the biggest con
> artists of all Americans. It was time somebody
> had the balls in Congress to regulate health
> insurance companies.


LOL. No, they would not have tripled. They have gone up by about 25% in the last year or so, largely as a direct result of the added coverage requirements.

But beyond that, all Obamacare did was guarantee the insurance companies several 100 million customers at a guaranteed profit level on a cost-plus basis. Not a bad deal in my book. One which was cut with them and the drug companies, etc., quietly in advance. That's why you didn't hear much of any opposition from them. But we don't like to talk about that.

Except one thing, you're not adding sick people. You're adding healthy people. The sick elderly are already on Medicare. If you're worried about the few cancer stricken children without insurance. You're just cruel.

Failed liberal policy produced the recession of 07 though you would not be able to convince Barney Frank of that even now. He was warned well in advance of the foreclosure boom that something better be done a.s.a.p. So two months before the collapse of the housing bubble, Barnaby the Franfurter lover said "the bankths and the mortgagsthe holderths are all in good sthape". "What about the barrowers cocksucker" asked Ron Paul. Frank's reply "thoths people sthouldn't have barrowed wisth minimum wadge djobths".

Liberal failure eventually will lead to America's resurgeance as the lone global superpower. The unaffordable health care act will only accellerate the national debt which has gone up eight and one half trillion dollars since Nancy Peloosi and Harry Redchina took over the house of representatives and senate respectfully or should I say disrespectfully!!!!

The sooner the true right wingers are put back in charge the sooner America will become great and strong again!!!!!

Oblama Care will fail America entirely on it's own. So you liberals don't even think about blaming conservatives in couple years after the country suffers a catastrophic economic collapse. Conservative views aren't going to determine anything reguarding the AHCA. It is the law of the land. The point is that us conservatives are merely saying it will fail our country ahead of time!!!!

We know a bad thing when we see it!!

Funny how the proponents of the Insurance based system attack the ACA for incorporating insurance exchanges. I will never know what satisfies these people. Just nothing? Let people die? Fuck em?

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except one thing, you're not adding sick people.
> You're adding healthy people. The sick elderly are
> already on Medicare. If you're worried about the
> few cancer stricken children without insurance.
> You're just cruel.


Stop posting. You are a joke. Show me the study that says we are adding healthy people. The people without health insurance are far less healthy. And, with this brilliant law, if you are young, healthy and feeling invincible, you will gladly pay the penalty vs. buying the insurance, which guarantees that for the most part, just the sick will join and drive cost up. You can't make an argument just because you think something, you have to have some facts.

Not to mention the current system as the most inefficient system possible. Unsustainable and crippling the economy and the health of Americans.

republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to mention the current system as the most
> inefficient system possible. Unsustainable and
> crippling the economy and the health of Americans.


Another horrendous post. Please put the Ipad down. Tell me once again, is the current system crippling the health of Americans, or are Americans themselves (Obesity, Diabetes, etc) crippling the health of Americans. That is the problem with this law, it does nothing to address the underlying cost of care and reasons that are driving it.

Your position is that of all that younger people will deny themselves coverage and pay fines therefore only sick people will be added. Extremely theoretical with no basis in facts yet you claim basis in fact. Moving on.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except one thing, you're not adding sick people.
> You're adding healthy people. The sick elderly are
> already on Medicare. If you're worried about the
> few cancer stricken children without insurance.
> You're just cruel.


Look dummy, here's how Obamacare and all such programs work - you get lots of relatively healthy/wealthier people to pay for relatively fewer sick/poor people.

All Obamacare did was to force more younger/wealthier healthy people to put money into the system to cover the increases in costs as a result of mandating coverage and associated subsidies for older/poorer people. Whether it's done through private insurance exchanges or "universal health care" there's little fundamental difference. The net payers simply end up paying in different ways to cover the costs. Whether it's to insurance companies or via taxes and debt doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference.

As even honest proponents will admit, we've still done nothing to deal with the rapidly rising costs both due to demographics and more generally. All we've done is come up with a way to force people to pay for those costs and subsidize people who can't pony up their share.

Aetna Luvs You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republitards Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Except one thing, you're not adding sick people.
>
> > You're adding healthy people. The sick elderly
> are
> > already on Medicare. If you're worried about
> the
> > few cancer stricken children without insurance.
> > You're just cruel.
>
>
> Look dummy, here's how Obamacare and all such
> programs work - you get lots of relatively
> healthy/wealthier people to pay for relatively
> fewer sick/poor people.
>
> All Obamacare did was to force more
> younger/wealthier healthy people to put money into
> the system to cover the increases in costs as a
> result of mandating coverage and associated
> subsidies for older/poorer people. Whether it's
> done through private insurance exchanges or
> "universal health care" there's little fundamental
> difference. The net payers simply end up paying
> in different ways to cover the costs. Whether
> it's to insurance companies or via taxes and debt
> doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference.
>
> As even honest proponents will admit, we've still
> done nothing to deal with the rapidly rising costs
> both due to demographics and more generally. All
> we've done is come up with a way to force people
> to pay for those costs and subsidize people who
> can't pony up their share.


Republitards----listen to this guy, he knows what he is talking about. You don't. You just hate and dislike, but really don't know what to do other than spew your anger.

Which Republican talking point am I debating? One says there won't be any new young people, the other says the new young people will be on the hook.

Well, if you understood the argument, you would know that you are debating both. Because:
a. Many young healthy's will opt out and pay the fine because the fine doesn't approach the real cost of care
b. those who stay in will pay more, alot more.

See, the money has to come from somewhere.

Get it?

Free health care, free food stamps, free obamaphones, free college and free housing. Good thing we control the printing presses to pay for all this stuff

You're suggesting premiums will go up? Do you know what percentage premiums have increased over the past 12 years? Inaction is better I suppose?

One thing Republicans won't tell you is their solution. Two reasons for that. One, they don't want a solution or care about the uninsured and increasing burdens on business because of insurance costs. Or two, Obamacare has always actually been the Republican solution and due to this compromise they are left with nothing to argue in political opposition.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which Republican talking point am I debating? One
> says there won't be any new young people, the
> other says the new young people will be on the
> hook.


They're not talking points, they're facts. And it's both, neither of which really are debatable.

It's not that there are won't be young people, it's that there are a ton of old people with lots more coming for the next 20 years or so just due to demographics. Given that the bulk of health care costs are at later stages of life and we've made promises and incurred financial obligations that we never really had the money for and now have to pay, that's a big problem.

There's no magic money here. Who do you think is going to pay for it? That great new feature of having coverage on your parent's policy until age 26 is going to cost you a ton of money over your lifetime. As is subsidizing, one way or another, all of the people who can't afford to pay.

As CBO recently noted, adding millions of people will not cut costs. It *might* reduce per capita costs, assuming some economies of scale, but the overall costs are going to be huge and dwarf that.

The Affordable Health Care Act was a direct result of insurance companies out of control people defaulting on medical bills. The act was largely drawn up from Romney Care.

The act holds ALL Americans responsible for paying for their own insurance. If an American doesn't have health insurance they get penalized around $680 a year on their taxes.

Romney put the plan in place to stop people from going to hospitals, getting treated and then skipping out on their medicals bills.

We all know somebody who didn't have insurance and now can't pay $50,000 or more in medical bills.

WHO PAYS FOR THAT COST? YOU DO IN HIGHER COSTS AT THE HOSPITAL TO COVER THESE DEADBEATS WITHOUT INSURANCE!

Costs don't go up simply because some people go to the ER and don't pay their bills as well. That's also a bullshit attempt to dodge blame on a insurance based system. There is natural systematic inflation type rises in costs as hospitals pass on costs to a middle man which efficiently passes them on to people whom have no choice but to pay high premiums. It's a system that if continues to be unregulated as it is will continue to increase profitability for all parties involved and less health care for people.

The problem is people don't want the cheapest doctor in town and they rarely shop around to find out who can do the operation cheaper. If you see a doctor they refer you to their buddy who is "a specialist." In most cases that means a referral fee for the doctor.

The same is true of prescription and medications. Doctors get kick backs for writing prescriptions of drugs. They write the prescriptions for drugs that will make them more money.

The American healthcare industry is the biggest sham on the American public.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Costs don't go up simply because some people go to
> the ER and don't pay their bills as well. That's
> also a bullshit attempt to dodge blame on a
> insurance based system. There is natural
> systematic inflation type rises in costs as
> hospitals pass on costs to a middle man which
> efficiently passes them on to people whom have no
> choice but to pay high premiums. It's a system
> that if continues to be unregulated as it is will
> continue to increase profitability for all parties
> involved and less health care for people.

I can see you havent been to an ER lately or ever worked there. The majority of patients are not true emergencys. It is the most abused system in the U S. Making an appointment to see a doctor is just too much for some people who know if they come in they must be treated. What used to be a fifteen minute wait can now be up to eight hours.

Want to know why its so expensive then thank the lawyers who sue over everything. I had a co worker who was a fat slug. Due to his weight he had knee problems. The doctor performed surgery but warned him he needed to exercise the knee to keep the blood flowing to help the healing process. He went right onto the couch ignoring the exercise regimen. Of course the knee had more issues so he sued the doctor. Rather than a lengthy expensive court battle they gave him $50,000 to go away.

There were 2,726 by terrorist in the September 11th attack. In that same year cancer killed 456,000 Americans. That's just cancer and not including Heart disease.

That's puts terrorism as a .005 killer of Americans. Yet.. We spend 58% of tax dollars on terrorism? Doesn't make any sense.

To save American lives we need to seriously change the way Americans think and the way we allocate our tax dollars.

The chances of you, your sister, mom or dad being killed by a terrorist are very slim. The chances of you you, your sister, mom, dad or friends death being a result of heart disease or cancer are almost a fact.

We need to stop spending money on building bombs to blow people up and stop spending money on what really matters. Curing diseases and improving the American healthcare system.

Blowing people up and invading their countries just pisses them off.

Tea Baggins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There were 2,726 by terrorist in the September
> 11th attack. In that same year cancer killed
> 456,000 Americans. That's just cancer and not
> including Heart disease.
>
> That's puts terrorism as a .005 killer of
> Americans. Yet.. We spend 58% of tax dollars on
> terrorism? Doesn't make any sense.
>
> To save American lives we need to seriously change
> the way Americans think and the way we allocate
> our tax dollars.
>
> The chances of you, your sister, mom or dad being
> killed by a terrorist are very slim. The chances
> of you you, your sister, mom, dad or friends death
> being a result of heart disease or cancer are
> almost a fact.
>
> We need to stop spending money on building bombs
> to blow people up and stop spending money on what
> really matters. Curing diseases and improving the
> American healthcare system.
>
> Blowing people up and invading their countries
> just pisses them off.

talk to the king of drones, he controls the country not republicans

"The chances of you, your sister, mom or dad being killed by a terrorist are very slim. The chances of you you, your sister, mom, dad or friends death being a result of heart disease or cancer are almost a fact."

We all gotta die of something toadface.........

I agree about Doctors and Lawyers. Medical malpractice lawsuits are a joke.

Just have patient sign a form that says "I agree that I give up all rights to sue this doctor if he makes a mistake."

Tea Baggins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's puts terrorism as a .005 killer of
> Americans. Yet.. We spend 58% of tax dollars on
> terrorism? Doesn't make any sense.
>

No, we don't. lol

Whose partisan ass did you pull that number out of?

clock ticking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The chances of you, your sister, mom or dad being
> killed by a terrorist are very slim. The chances
> of you you, your sister, mom, dad or friends death
> being a result of heart disease or cancer are
> almost a fact."
>
> We all gotta die of something toadface.........

Yes, but why not protect or work towards solving the number one killer of Americans by improving the American healthcare system?

Saving 500,000 Americans a year by curing cancer would be nice. Instead we spend trillions on building better bombs and marching around the world dictating how people should live in their countries.

The Truth Hurts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree about Doctors and Lawyers. Medical
> malpractice lawsuits are a joke.
>
> Just have patient sign a form that says "I agree
> that I give up all rights to sue this doctor if he
> makes a mistake."


Thats absurd.

What needs to happen is common sense needs to come back into the legal system and start dismissing the I want money for nothing claims and only deal with the real ones. If a doctor does make a mistake they should pay, theres a big difference though between negligence and people shifting blame which happens a lot in todays society. But there is a HUGE issue of doctors doing things to get more money whether it be surgeries or ct scans because it pads their pockets.

Theres a lot of good doctors out there and a lot of bad ones.

Nothing in Obamacare does a single thing to make the system cheaper, in fact its now more expensive to see a good doctor as a lot have just stopped accepting insurance or are out of network.

If you want insurance to be lower than open it up across states for competition, Obamacare will only drive it higher.

If you want healthcare costs to be lower then we need to not have such a lax attitude towards things. Look at any othropedic office pumping out knee surgeries like its no big deal yet 17% of them end up in blood clots and for some of the operations its as high as 50% which turns into 100s of 1000s of dollars in health care costs per significant clot and millions over their lifetime. Yet we just do those as out patient procedures and most orthos especially in northern Va dont even give blood thinners or take any precautions. Things like that are common in the system where the system kind of insures future business for itself.

That doesnt even touch on the bloated administrative staffs and salaries that all hospitals have and really most industries have

Taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's a "basic human right"? It used to be
> "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

None of those are "rights", no matter what the Declaration of Independence says.

Quoting RAH:
Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right' -- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is ismply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

We now return you to your previous series of irrational diatribes.

The forefathers named life as the very first right declared at the birth of our nation for her citizens. Everything else was an after point including liberty. The also pertains to the gun debate. Life then liberty then the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness is straight Stalin Communism if we even utter the words so we won't go there. Therefore, can we at least get some life in this bitch? Thomas Jefferson wrote to those British fucks. We are now Americans and first and foremost as Americans we have the right to LIFE. The right to life meant. Fuck you and your Red Coat Army. We will put our lives on the line and cherish the lives of our citizens as a civilized society for this country. Boy would they be disappointed to know the British gov't takes better care of the health and well being of their citizens today. They're just doin roller coaster flips in their graves.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boy would they be
> disappointed to know the British gov't takes
> better care of the health and well being of their
> citizens today.

Yea thats really not true. Theres a reason why people come from all over the world to get treated here and its not because our hospitals are inferior or they really want to hang out in the ghetto at Hopkins.

Try getting an MRI or CT scan in Canada the wait is absurd. Universal healthcare through out the world has basically meant rationed care

Actually what you said isn't true. Go ahead, ask Canadians or British or French or Norwegians if they want your health care system. Americans in died straights attach themselves to Canadian friends, spouses or relatives and beg for life from the Canadian health care system in the thousands and they, the Canadians, a foreign state has the compassion to provide it for your fellow Americans. Yet you remain indifferent.

republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually what you said isn't true. Go ahead, ask
> Canadians or British or French or Norwegians if
> they want your health care system. Americans in
> died straights attach themselves to Canadian
> friends, spouses or relatives and beg for life
> from the Canadian health care system in the
> thousands and they, the Canadians, a foreign state
> has the compassion to provide it for your fellow
> Americans. Yet you remain indifferent.


Again nothing about that is true. You have to be trolling at this point. Americans arent flooding across the boarder for health care, if anything its the other way around.

Theres even very famous stories of it happening one of which was Brock Lesnar in the last few years. He was basically left for dead in Canada and his wife threw him in the car and drove him to the Mayo clinic where hes made as good of a recovery as you can from diverticulitis.

Or all the foreign dignitaries that come to the US for their cancer treatments or surgeries. Show me one story or instance of them going to Canada or an American going to Canada because it was considered better. Doesnt happen

just stop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you actual were familiar with the bill you
> would know theres no defending that steaming pile
> of crap that rations healthcare while making it
> more expensive for everyone.

You claim to be familiar with the bill. Tell me where it "rations" healthcare.

The Truth Hurts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree about Doctors and Lawyers. Medical
> malpractice lawsuits are a joke.

In many cases, yes. In some cases, absolutely not. There are doctors who have killed people due to gross incompetence. Those doctors deserve to be punished.

You're proud of a insurance based health care system that is good at primarily catering to the ultra rich. That's where my morals and standards of progress and capacity and yours are different. We have a different view of an effective health care system. You're okay with 33 percent of Texas working age population being uninsured as long as some rich MMA fighter slash pro wrestler finds his best celebrity care in the United States. We just have different expectations.

Name me one person thats been denied care at an ER, it doesnt happen. If you need the care its there. People that are uninsured are uninsured because they want to be, or in the case of boarder states like Texas a large portion of that is the illegals.

Everything in life is better for the ultra rich, but anyone is free to seek out the doctors they go too. The care is there you just have to be proactive about it. But insurance has nothing to do with your care, all that matters for is if the hospital will get paid back. The doctors treating you dont look up your insurance information.

But that doesnt change the fact that your basing the assumptions of the crappy care and things that just simply arent true. Hell you can argue that care is actually better for the inner city poor. Hopkins, The Cleveland Clinic, and numerous other elite hospitals are located in parts of town that the wealthy would never dream of living in.

Again if those other countries were such models of medical elitism we would be following that and they wouldnt all be coming here for treatment

Aetna Luvs You Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look dummy, here's how Obamacare and all such
> programs work - you get lots of relatively
> healthy/wealthier people to pay for relatively
> fewer sick/poor people.

Hooray, someone who understands how entitlements and welfare states work! The issue is: when you have a country with a very linear (rather than pyramidal) age distribution, you have fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more non-workers. As Margaret Thatcher once said, welfare states are great until you run out of other people's money.

> All Obamacare did was to force more
> younger/wealthier healthy people to put money into
> the system to cover the increases in costs as a
> result of mandating coverage and associated
> subsidies for older/poorer people. Whether it's
> done through private insurance exchanges or
> "universal health care" there's little fundamental
> difference. The net payers simply end up paying
> in different ways to cover the costs. Whether
> it's to insurance companies or via taxes and debt
> doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference.

The main part of Obamacare was intended to develop a system through which every American could be insured through either the government or the private sector. It's a noble goal. However, you're correct as to the payers ending up covering the costs. The differences are in the smaller details that people don't talk about: elimination of the lifetime spending cap, elimination of pre-existing conditions, etc.

> As even honest proponents will admit, we've still
> done nothing to deal with the rapidly rising costs
> both due to demographics and more generally. All
> we've done is come up with a way to force people
> to pay for those costs and subsidize people who
> can't pony up their share.

The rapidly rising costs have a multitude of reasons behind them. Washington won't deal with the actual causes, because the pharmecutical companies are very wealthy.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just stop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you actual were familiar with the bill you
> > would know theres no defending that steaming
> pile
> > of crap that rations healthcare while making it
> > more expensive for everyone.
>
> You claim to be familiar with the bill. Tell me
> where it "rations" healthcare.


Scott W. Atlas, M.D., Contributor

A doctor’s perspective on health care systems from the inside.

10/21/2012 @ 10:53AM |6,654 views

IPAB: President Obama's NICE Way To Ration Care To Seniors

Health care reform has been one of the most polarizing discussions in all of public policy. Assertions decrying poor access and low quality of U.S. medical care relative to nationalized systems, despite often being wholly contradicted by facts in the medical journals, have served to justify the dramatic changes to the U.S. health care system fundamental to the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

Only after being signed into law by President Obama has the nature of those changes become visible. While many of the law’s provisions and their implications are necessarily complex, wordsmithing by the crafters of the ACA and strident denials by its supporters have masked some of the most significant impacts of the law.

But common sense still matters.

President Obama’s ACA established the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a 15-member panel of unelected federal employees; its members to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The law does not require the IPAB to be bi-partisan in structure, as is required for almost all other independent agencies. Its mission is specific – to restrict payments to doctors and hospitals in order to achieve a reduction in Medicare spending beneath a specified cap.

The reality is that the IPAB represents an unprecedented shift of power from individual Americans and their families to a centralized authority, a controlling Board of political appointees that is virtually unaccountable, and destined to become President Obama’s version of the NICE rationing board in Britain’s socialized medical system, the National Health Service.

But wait – President Obama and the ACA supporters point to specific language in the ACA law that explicitly prohibits “rationing.” Beyond the obvious – the absence of any definition of rationing in the law – is that this is implausible deniability, since all evidence points to the de facto rationing that will clearly result from IPAB’s dramatic payment cuts to doctors and hospitals.

We know that doctors cite the money-losing reimbursement rates for government insurance as the Number One reason for refusing new Medicaid and Medicare patients. And we know, even before the ACA payment cuts of 31 percent in 2013, more than 20 percent of primary care doctors already were not accepting any new Medicare patients (five times the rate of doctors who refuse private insurance), and about 40 percent of primary care doctors and 20 percent of specialists already refused most new Medicare patients. By 2019, Medicare cuts under the Obama law will be so severe that payments will become even lower than Medicaid, a system by which almost one half of doctors already refuse to accept new patients.

But what about the claim by Obama supporters that rationing by the IPAB in government insurance is no different from having private insurance, where coverage can be denied? No, it is not at all the same. When a government body, or any single entity, is the overwhelmingly dominant insurer for a group of people, or when such an entity is given vast and unaccountable authority over decisions, like IPAB, that body’s decisions to restrict care are essentially absolute. On the contrary, a private insurer has no monopoly – in a competitive environment, consumers can shop for insurance that meets their coverage needs. Just as in any other good or service, competition not only reduces prices, it improves choices for individuals. The difference is that in this case, choice can save lives.

All that said, the clout of IPAB is even broader and more nefarious than on initial consideration. Beyond overpowering authority to directly cut payments for care under Medicare, the IPAB has the power to regulate all health care in the U.S., including private health care and private health insurance, so long as such action is deemed to “help reduce the growth rate [of national health expenditures] while maintaining or enhancing [Medicare] beneficiary access to quality care.” For instance, IPAB can reduce reimbursement via private insurance down to, or even below, the reduced Medicare rates, thereby maintaining (equal) access to care for Medicare enrollees and limiting overall national spending.

Can we predict the future of IPAB? Over a decade ago, Britain set up its National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), a group of appointees whose pronouncements limit medication and technology usage based on costs. Despite the endless complaints and numerous lawsuits by doctors and citizen groups in Britain, NICE served as the model upon which IPAB was based. A Board of appointees like the IPAB, its role is to reduce health spending.

NICE has become a rationing Board, holding costs down by limiting available treatments. Ninety percent of England’s hospital trusts are now rationing care by following NICE’s long list of “recommendations” that includes stopping access to drugs that prolong life or cure breast cancer, stomach cancer, kidney cancer, macular degeneration (causing progressive blindness), multiple myeloma, rheumatoid arthritis, early Alzheimer’s disease, MS, and osteoporosis that causes hip fractures and premature death. NICE also restricts hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery, procedures for back pain, infertility, steroid injections and cancer screening like PAP smears. David Stout of the NHS Confederation representing primary care trusts explained to the BBC that “the NHS faces considerable financial pressures and scarce resources have to be used as effectively as possible.” Under NICE, treatments are routinely refused on the grounds of limited resources and the need to make decisions based not on individual’s or family’s choice, but on the government’s assessment of the benefit.

Ironically, according to its own annual reports, NICE is spending more money on propaganda about its decisions than it would have spent if it allowed patients access to the very medicines it is denying. Britain’s Daily Mail reported that money that the institute spends on public relations campaigns “could have paid for 5,000 Alzheimer’s sufferers to get £2.50-a-day drugs for a year” or “nearly 200 patients with advanced kidney cancer to have a drug for 12 months that would double their life expectancy.”

Regardless of how strident the denials by ACA supporters about IPAB, nothing was more revealing about President Obama’s true agenda than his personal choice for Administrator of Medicare and Medicaid, Donald Berwick, officially appointed within a few months of the bill’s signing. Berwick proclaimed to the NHS in 2008 that individual choice is not appropriate in structuring health care – “that is for leaders to do” – as he continued, “I’m romantic about the NHS. I love it” despite its proven inferior outcomes and scandalous limits of access to care. And one year later, Berwick praised the UK’s rationing Board specifically, saying “NICE is extremely effective and a conscientious, valuable, and — importantly — knowledge-building system.” This is the same Donald Berwick, who declared before his stealth appointment by President Obama while Congress was in recess that “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

IPAB’s lack of accountability for such authority over the personal decisions of Americans by government appointees is unprecedented. Beginning January 15, 2014 and every year thereafter, the law requires the board to submit specific recommendations to the President and Congress to “slow the growth” in national health expenditures. However, decisions by the panel are not simply recommendations to Congress; if the Senate, the House, and the president do not concur on an alternative proposal, or if Congress does not act at all, the HHS Secretary is required to implement the board’s recommendations. The Secretary’s actions are immune from any administrative modification, presidential veto, or judicial review. As of August 15, 2014, if the IPAB does not submit such recommendations and Congress does not enact its own Medicare payment restrictions, the Secretary of HHS, an unelected official, is authorized to make and implement them unilaterally, i.e. without any other approval.

Why the great lengths to isolate IPAB decisions from review or rejection? Apparently, this was designed to isolate such decisions from political “pressures”, like, for example, facing the electorate in our accountable representative government, pressures that have supposedly interfered with previous attempts to forcibly reduce health care costs by price fixing (see former Director of the Office of Management and Budget for President Obama, Peter Orszag’s “Too Much of a Good Thing: Why We Need Less Democracy,” New Republic, September 14, 2011). Ultimately unaccountable and nearly omnipotent to an unprecedented degree, IPAB has been called“…“independent” in the worst sense of the word: it is independent of Congress, independent of the President, independent of the judiciary and independent of the will of the people,” as stated by Senior Attorney Diane Cohen of the Goldwater Institute, a government watchdog organization, in testimony to the House of Representatives on July 14, 2011.

Most Americans understand the reality of ObamaCare and want its repeal, no matter how vociferous the denials by President Obama and his administration. It does not require a degree in economics to realize the obvious – that reducing payment by IPAB decree for a procedure below what a doctor would accept will severely restrict access to that care –and that is a way of rationing care, whether or not the word “rationing” appears in the edict itself. And the attempt to justify such rationing by equating it with the truism that nothing is available without limits is frankly disingenuous and even offensive, a cynical argument meant to obscure what is completely antithetical to a America’s free society – the imposition of government dictates onto the personal lives of an unwilling American public.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Name me one person thats been denied care at an
> ER, it doesnt happen. If you need the care its
> there. People that are uninsured are uninsured
> because they want to be, or in the case of boarder
> states like Texas a large portion of that is the
> illegals.

I agree. If you go to an ER or an ICU, a hospital will treat you, regardless of if you can pay or not. Generally, they will take the actions necessary to save your life, then worry about payment. This is probably the best reason I can think of for some sort of universal healthcare. Rather than having people go into bankruptcy and having the taxpayer pay for it, they'll have insurance to cover it. However, there's the issue of many of these people probably using Medicaid, so the taxpayer will end up paying for it anyway.

> Everything in life is better for the ultra rich,
> but anyone is free to seek out the doctors they go
> too. The care is there you just have to be
> proactive about it. But insurance has nothing to
> do with your care, all that matters for is if the
> hospital will get paid back. The doctors treating
> you dont look up your insurance information.

Doctors treat you if you need treatment, then they worry about payment. It's a fundamental idea of medicine. We treat you, then we worry if you can pay.

> But that doesnt change the fact that your basing
> the assumptions of the crappy care and things that
> just simply arent true. Hell you can argue that
> care is actually better for the inner city poor.
> Hopkins, The Cleveland Clinic, and numerous other
> elite hospitals are located in parts of town that
> the wealthy would never dream of living in.

Well, that's true, to an extent. You have to realize that the majority of these hospitals were founded before inner cities became quasi-battlefields.

I don't care about a guy's interpretation; I care about the actual language of the bill.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2013 11:51PM by Young Curmudgeon.

It's really simple, given the circumstances both human or economic. We have no choice but to try ACA as a nation with Virginia being a participant. Outside of that the only remaining option is a European or Canadian style public option system. If you don't like socialized medicine. You better hope to God ObamaCare is a success because your system kills people while ballooning healthcare costs.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just stop Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you actual were familiar with the bill you
> > would know theres no defending that steaming
> pile
> > of crap that rations healthcare while making it
> > more expensive for everyone.
>
> You claim to be familiar with the bill. Tell me
> where it "rations" healthcare.

Reducing payment to doctors makes it not worth it for them to be doctors. Weve already seen in the DC area where many of the better primary care doctors have stopped accepting insurance. This rations care by having fewer doctors most people can afford to go too, and then the ones that do still take insurance take forever to see again rationing care.

Medical device companies are also moving overseas from the taxes or just going out of business reducing quality of care. Anytime the government gets involved in anything they start to tinker with how it operates, this will mean one size fits all approaches to medical problems something INOVA already does and leaves you screwed if you dont fall into the percentage that works for.

Republitards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's really simple, given the circumstances both
> human or economic. We have no choice but to try
> ACA as a nation with Virginia being a participant.
> Outside of that the only remaining option is a
> European or Canadian style public option system.
> If you don't like socialized medicine. You better
> hope to God ObamaCare is a success because your
> system kills people while ballooning healthcare
> costs.

Virginia is forced to do so by federal law. It doesn't matter who doesn't want it to happen. The states CANNOT pick and choose which federal laws they follow.

The ACA has some very beneficial parts to it. I support a majority of it. However, there are parts that need to be eliminated or amended. Also, we need to address the root causes of healthcare inflation, not just pass a bill insuring everyone.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:

> I agree. If you go to an ER or an ICU, a hospital
> will treat you, regardless of if you can pay or
> not. Generally, they will take the actions
> necessary to save your life, then worry about
> payment. This is probably the best reason I can
> think of for some sort of universal healthcare.
> Rather than having people go into bankruptcy and
> having the taxpayer pay for it, they'll have
> insurance to cover it. However, there's the issue
> of many of these people probably using Medicaid,
> so the taxpayer will end up paying for it anyway.

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.

But if the bill doesnt get paid the hospital just eats the cost the government doesnt pay it. Its also not really a lost cost for them, those people work on salary and the hospital would be open if they werent there. They lose 20 bucks on supplies, other than that its more of a wasted chance to make money than a loss to them.


> Doctors treat you if you need treatment, then they
> worry about payment. It's a fundamental idea of
> medicine. We treat you, then we worry if you can
> pay.

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

> Well, that's true, to an extent. You have to
> realize that the majority of these hospitals were
> founded before inner cities became
> quasi-battlefields.

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

Believe it or not in other developed nations where there are no shortage of Doctors and the doctors only make a quarter million a year. When they're asked how the hell it is they accept their profession. They say I live an excellent standard of living and became a doctor to help people and live a respectable lifestyle.

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?

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.

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.