- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 26, 2012 at 7:52 pm #750184
kootchmanMemberIf he governed like a republican… we wouldn’t have Obamacare. If he governed like a republican, he would lower tax rates. But since you seem to think so… then you might as well vote the Tampa nominee… cause what we have now isn’t governing well for either side. Did ya hear Geitner this morning? We have to grow the economy or we will be stuck… not enough jobs, not enough revenue. No more “crack” jobs from federal stimulus… real. private enterprise, profit making jobs.
March 27, 2012 at 3:48 am #750185
jamminjMember“f he governed like a republican… we wouldn’t have Obamacare”
almost all tenants of the aca are republican ideas.
“If he governed like a republican, he would lower tax rates.”
done, taxes are at a historic low. (btw, reagan raised taxes 7/8 years in office).
March 27, 2012 at 3:53 am #750186
jamminjMember” How you get coverage for your family…that’s your job, not mine or the federal governments. “
the epitome of the GOP, I got mine so screw you. And worldcitizen wanted us to believe that the right wing had a heart. blah blah blah we donate more, but if your insurance doesn’t want to cover your illness, oh well bad blah blah blah.
again, pro life until after birth. then you’re on your own.
March 27, 2012 at 4:20 am #750187
redblackParticipantI worry about my family and how to get them healthcare. I like my healthcare plans..I don’t want them to be supplanted. How you get coverage for your family…that’s your job, not mine or the federal governments.
i asked you a specific question, and you can’t – or won’t – answer it.
HOW is the government going to take over health care in america?
you keep saying it, yet you can’t provide me any specifics.
unless you can show me specific examples of how citizens are going to be issued government cards that replace health insurance cards – and all of the forms that go with them – i think i’m pretty close to proving unequivocally that you are talking out of… someplace other than your face.
March 27, 2012 at 8:38 am #750188
HMC RichParticipantYou will have boards rationing health care. It will undercut private insurance programs and put many people out of work. The young and old will not receive certain drugs, operations, or programs that they do now. Employers will drop their private carriers and have their employees join the government plan. It will eat up a large portion of the Federal Budget. It will kill Medicare (they are doing it already). They have shown they cannot run other entitlements properly, and you expect them to run this? The costs will be astronomical. The country will go broke (oh wait, we already borrow 40 cents on every dollar.)
Sounds like the best deal EVER.
March 27, 2012 at 9:59 am #750189
JanSParticipantMarch 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm #750190
JoBParticipantHMCRich
“It will undercut private insurance programs”
at last.. we come to the real objection to Obamacare..
March 27, 2012 at 1:51 pm #750191
redblackParticipantYou will have boards rationing health care.
false. plus, insurance companies already do that.
It will undercut private insurance programs and put many people out of work.
false. it actually mandates that people buy insurance, giving them more business, not less.
Employers will drop their private carriers and have their employees join the government plan.
what government plan? there is none.
state insurance exchanges will be run by insurance companies and are only available to the poor.
The young and old will not receive certain drugs, operations, or programs that they do now.
false. they will actually have access to more procedures for which they are currently denied coverage… unless they walk in with a bucket of cash.
It will eat up a large portion of the Federal Budget.
false. it will actually reduce the deficit fractionally, simply by removing inefficiencies and by getting some people off of medicaid.
It will kill Medicare (they are doing it already).
false. the ACA expands medicare.
medicare’s current woes are the result of republican budget-cutting.
March 29, 2012 at 12:34 am #750192
kootchmanMemberThank god we have an election coming. Nothing settles arguments better than electoral votes. And, Super Pacs.
March 29, 2012 at 8:56 am #750193
HMC RichParticipantSorry, but Romneycare is not a rousing success. At least it was done by a state and not the Federal Government which has no mandate for healthcare.
Redblack, I am glad you have such faith in the Government. I don’t believe it for a minute. I hate our current healthcare payment system, but this one won’t work. Romneycare already proves it.
Cass Sunstein, one of the administrations czar’s wrote this. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=421341 Yes, a cost benefit analysis that says the elderly aren’t worth it.
From a Wall Street Journal story: “ObamaCare created a commission — the Independent Payment Advisory Board — tasked with limiting spending on Medicare. Its recommendations will be binding, unless Congress can come up with equivalent cost-savings of its own. For the first time, an unelected group will be empowered to limit health spending for the vulnerable elderly.”
Insurance Companies: The government would mandate what private companies can and cannot do. That would make it a governmental plan run by companies. AKA a government health plan. Almost, but not quite a Fannie and Freddie GSE. And haven’t they been a success story!!!
How about CBO revisions plus costs and gimmicks…http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/21/cbos-estimates-of-obamacare-revisited/
Honestly, you yourself have come up with better solutions. This is an abortion. Why put lipstick on this pig? It won’t fly. It is bad legislation meant to be good.
It is possible some insurance companies will get big time profits from this, but others will lose. I want them to lose on the market. Not by government decree.
And one thing I find ironic. Currently you can’t purchase health insurance outside of your state. I have heard arguments pro and con. But if the Federal Government takes over the regulations, would they not be crossing interstate lines of commerce? Would that be over riding state rights? The government would be a not so silent business partner/monopolist. I find that strange.
But, lets face it. I am just a consumer and I do not know or have a lot of the answers. I freely admit that. But I do like going back and forth on this.
March 29, 2012 at 12:57 pm #750194
redblackParticipantInsurance Companies: The government would mandate what private companies can and cannot do. That would make it a governmental plan run by companies. AKA a government health plan.
oh. well, since we have the SEC which creates rules for the transfer of securities, by your logic, the stock market is run by the government.
i guess the existence of the FAA proves that we have government-run airlines.
and the FCC must prove that the government runs broadcast media.
and i guess since we have federal drug laws, we all live in a police state, huh?
LOL. that’s one of the weirdest twists of logic i have ever seen, rich.
Honestly, you yourself have come up with better solutions. This is an abortion. Why put lipstick on this pig? It won’t fly. It is bad legislation meant to be good.
dude. my solution is single-payer. that is government-administered insurance that replaces everyone’s deductible with a tax, but allows people who can afford it to buy private insurance. but the goal is to drive the price so low that insurance companies won’t be able to compete.
there. i said it. fire away.
then tell me how making insurance companies do what they pledged to do is bad legislation? the bulk of ACA is simple enforcement of contracts that people expect from their health insurance carriers.
there is no government plan. we on the left couldn’t even get a public option, for crying out loud.
It is possible some insurance companies will get big time profits from this, but others will lose. I want them to lose on the market. Not by government decree.
dude! all insurance companies will see big-time increases in their business. all of them. every single one. the government is driving people into the arms of the insurance industry. this is the farthest thing from socialism that there is.
wait. isn’t that the mandate that you guys were so p.o.’ed about?
you can’t have it both ways and eat it, too, you know.
And one thing I find ironic. Currently you can’t purchase health insurance outside of your state.
why would you want to?
i thought this was a states’ rights issue, anyway.
you guys seem to approach this argument like health insurance is just another commodity to buy and sell. but if you have health conditions that need attention, it’s not so easy to be flippant about it.
and, frankly, rich, i’m not so sure how you can be so flippant about it. by your own admission, you can’t stay on any one health care plan because of cost. the funny thing is that, as a self-employed person, ACA seeks to lower costs for health care and make it so that you can afford to stay with a plan that covers all of your needs.
why is that so nefarious?
March 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm #750195
JoBParticipantredblack..
it’s a democratic conspiracy to create death squads like they did in Arizona..
oh wait.. Arizona isn’t a democratic state
it’s tea party nirvana
the dems made them do it ;->
March 29, 2012 at 2:29 pm #750196
redblackParticipantjust doing some reading on the independent payment advisory board. (IPAB) its predecessor was MedPAC, which was a toothless advisory council that was largely ignored by congress.
from what i can tell, IPAB is unpopular because it takes away the ability of lobbyists to run roughshod over medicare spending and influence congress to make policies that benefit big insurance.
IPAB must answer to medicare’s actuary, and it will not have direct congressional oversight.
in other words, it’s taking candy away from the babies in congress. and those babies are cranky at the prospect.
you guys were okay with congress rationing medicare spending and dictating policy, but when ACA sets up a truly responsive system to control medicare spending that’s out of reach of private influence… that’s socialism!
March 29, 2012 at 3:45 pm #750197
kootchmanMemberIt’s a rationing board. It’s last foray, was to cut the physicians reimbursement rates 21%. How about the government getting out of the business of trying to regulate prices in the market? Why would I want to purchase outside the market? The same reason I bought a car manufactured in Germany and not in Walla Walla. The more market choices I have the more likely I can find what I want at a price point I am willing to pay. If Obama had his way, we would be buying 60K Chevy Volts only. If I was negotiating for health insurance, get me 20 bids from 20 companies. That will lower my costs. I guess redblack as self employed, we know the value of choice.. The more restrictive, the less choice, the higher the cost. Has ever been thus. I don’t want, no Americans want, federal bureaucrats, unaccountable to anyone, overseeing healthcare. I can vote my pork addicted congressman out of office with enough fellow citizens. The whole intent of participatory democracy is to not have government out the reach of private influence. You have a convoluted reasoning… keeping government immune from private influence is socialism, making it a crime is facism.
March 29, 2012 at 3:52 pm #750198
kootchmanMemberI will say this in favor of Romenycare…. the state of Mass. didn’t have to borrow almost 70% of the funds to get it started! It didn’t increase the national deficit. And… if it doesn’t work for Mass, Mass can undo it.
“the epitome of the GOP, I got mine so screw you”
No jamminj… get off your collective butts and take care of your responsibilities. One of which is to provide the resources and make the choices to protect yourself and your families. It’s YOUR job to provide a secure life for yourself. Lots of things are given to you to do that.. trade schools, public education, etc. etc.. a little initiative is what you need to provide. when ya pull out an iPhone to call or text to tell me how unfair the world is.. or you complain about crappy cable service.. I sorta glaze over. Put that health insurance at the top of the ” I gotta have it” list.
March 29, 2012 at 3:57 pm #750199
JoBParticipantSo kootch..
ending the big handouts of medicare or any other government health program is good
because we can’t afford it
but a governmental body cutting expenses is bad
because that’s a rationing board
unless of course your insurance company is cutting expenses
by limiting physician charges
then it’s good
because that is the free market system at it’s best?
My head is spinning :(
Bottom line here
you think anything the government does is bad
unless the government is a Republican government
then everything they do is good?
even death squads
March 29, 2012 at 4:11 pm #750200
kootchmanMemberThey aren’t cutting expenses. They are rationing. My physician has all the power he needs to negotiate reimbursement rates. For one, if the plan doesn’t cover his expenses.. he can drop them and not be a provider. Would you purchase insurance from a company that had no doctors in the network? Noooooo, you wouldn’t. We want more insurance providers not less of them. Insurance companies have to provide a product worthy of purchasing… or they go out of business. In the case of the government… they raise taxes and borrow money.. or ration. My physician and insurance company have to exist in a competitive market. Doctors are no different than athletes.. some are ok, some good, some great. I want to keep the ability of the consumer to have access to the good and great one. The great ones will have patients… regardless of insurance. Access to the good ones vaporizes with rationing of reimbursement rates.
March 29, 2012 at 4:21 pm #750201
JoBParticipantso kootch..
if your insurance company sets the price they will pay for a physician visit
that’s a good thing?
evidence of the free market working…
but if the government does the same thing
that’s a bad thing
because it limits the number of choices those insured by medicare have
you do know that when your insurance company sets prices for medical visits..
that your choice of “plan” doctors is limited to those who will accept that payment, don’t you?
Explain again why that is a good thing if an insurance company does it
but “rationing” health care if the federal government does the same….
your insurance company doesn’t make money unless they take in more money from premiums than they pay out in health care costs..
health care rationing is very very profitable for them.
March 29, 2012 at 4:30 pm #750202
kootchmanMemberit’s a great thing. When the government does it.. and takes charge. you can’t drop em’ for crappy service, inferior products. or restrictive coverages. I don’t get methadone for pain management cause the government is cutting costs to maintain their legions of civil servants. Want to see it… go to the department of licensing up in your neck of the woods…. have fun! My physician negotiates his contracts…the insurance company “tries” to get him/her enrolled so I will buy the insurance. Until I let go of the money and pay the premiums… the insurance company has nothing. When the government takes the money… I get government policy and choice. No thanks. When my doc drops an insurer… I have to make a choice.. drop my doc or my carrier. That pressure keeps them both in equilibrium. I prefer the role of customer to subject.
March 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm #750203
JoBParticipantkootch..
so bottom line..
you would rather let some insurance company dictate the availability of your health care because you think you have some control because you have choices..
but can’t you still choose to get your medicare via an HMO style insurance plan at a bulk negotiated rate?
that’s choice.
and at a much better price than what you can get on the open market…
as for your example…
“I don’t get methadone for pain management cause the government is cutting costs to maintain their legions of civil servants.”
i suspect the “government” cutting costs has little to do with physician’s fears of losing their state license for providing patients with pain medications…
and more to do with the policies set by the state licensing commission…
and their tendency to prosecute doctors who prescribe any narcotic pain medication for pain control.
i thought you were all for state control kootch…
or have you now decided all government is bad?
March 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm #750204
kootchmanMemberNo, JoB the State of Washington mandated Medicare recepients were given Methadone because it was cheap. Methadone may be needed in pain management. But, it is a deadly drug, There are far more effecitve measures, with far less risk, that are less addictive. But Washington “rationed” the ability of physicians to act in the best interest of their patients. Well documented, including the attendant deaths. The price of socialized medicine. I don’t “think” I have control.. I do. I pay for the plan the fits my needs. That is not a decision I want in the hands of the federal government. I don’t get methadone because my doctor calls it outrageous medical malpractice… ” I don’t get it” (methadone) because it is too dangerous and my doctor won’t perscribe it outside a monitored, clinically supervised environment, i.e while in the hospital. It ain’t a take home drug.
173 deaths.
you better read more.. Ms. JoB… this would not happen in private medicine. Note the poor took the hit.
This is the future of socialized medicine.
The interview with the Seattle Times who uncovered the scandal. This is your benevolent state government. Your nanny. You might actually get some information… it may conflict with your idealogy..but you can handle it.
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-videos/Interview-with–135410323.html
March 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm #750205
kootchmanMemberRegarding state controlled medicine. the “dots” are deaths from methadone overdoses. Read the article JoB…
Everett, whose residents earn less than the state average, has 99 dots. Bellevue, with more people and more money, has eight. Working-class Port Angeles has 40 dots. Mercer Island, upscale and more populous, has none.
Talk about death panels!!!
For the past eight years Washington has steered people with state-subsidized health care — Medicaid patients, injured workers and state employees — to methadone, a narcotic with two notable characteristics. The drug is cheap. The drug is unpredictable.
Want to move on to the single payer plan for Native Americans? The infant mortality rates, rates of death from diabetes complications, loss of eyesight, heart disease, ? Want to see the stats for that single payer plan? It’s a good review.. because it has been in existance for half a century.
March 29, 2012 at 6:36 pm #750206
JanSParticipantI was on Medicaid from 2005 until just recently. I had numerous surgeries, that included being given pain killers for recovery. Never once did I get methadone. I always got Vicodin or Percocet. Maybe I’m special? Perhaps there are those deaths..but also we should never generalize, I suppose. It is not a given that if you’re on Medicaid you will always get methadone.
March 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm #750207
kootchmanMemberIt’s not “perhaps”.. it happened. It IS a given that you are more likely to get methadone if you are poor and on Medicaid. I asked my doctor whilst I was on Oxy … Maybe your pain was manageable by vicodin and Percocets… aspirin with a wee bit of codeine.. watch the video JaN… then comment. Did you not in previous posts say exactly the opposite? Didn;t you say you received methadone in a cocktail of pain meds.?
March 29, 2012 at 7:19 pm #750208
JanSParticipantI received the methadone in a cocktail in 1996…and I also got oxycontin along with it..was not on Medicaid then.
the point I was trying to make is…you are posting things that make it seem like all on Medicaid are only offered methadone because it’s cheaper, and that’s not the case..
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.