Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obamacare Predictions for May 2015 (Page 37)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  46  47  48   
Author Topic: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since it was clear from long before it passed and the democrats had all the time in the world to amend the bill
There wasn't all the time in the world, there was the limited time, counting procedural delays, left in the current legislative session. Your statement is complete nonsense to anyone that has the slightest about how the Congressional rules of order work.

quote:
There's no way that party discipline is THAT good.
That's complete nonsense, particularly on a big ticket item in combination with active primary threats across the board.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Since it was clear from long before it passed and the democrats had all the time in the world to amend the bill
There wasn't all the time in the world, there was the limited time, counting procedural delays, left in the current legislative session. Your statement is complete nonsense to anyone that has the slightest about how the Congressional rules of order work.

quote:
There's no way that party discipline is THAT good.
That's complete nonsense, particularly on a big ticket item in combination with active primary threats across the board.

How common are 100% party line votes? How many have there been in our history?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Party discipline is that good as a matter of course in Parliamentary systems.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Party discipline is that good as a matter of course in Parliamentary systems.

How about our system? Will ANYONE answer those questions above?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't need party discipline when you're voting against an absolute stinker of a bill, hence it was easy for Republicans to oppose it. More impressive was the Democratic party discipline to support it, and that's where all the "compromises" as you guys like to label them came from, ie ensuring that you didn't get principled defections by Democrats in districts who knew their voters opposed it.

I honestly couldn't care less about opinions that are premised on some variant of the belief that Republicans were somehow dishonest in voting against the bill. Suck it up, this is a 100% Democratic stinker.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I honestly couldn't care less about opinions that are premised on some variant of the belief that Republicans were somehow dishonest in voting against the bill. Suck it up, this is a 100% Democratic stinker.
Depends on what "dishonest" means. I think the Republicans honestly were 100% opposed to the passage of this bill, or to any bill resembling it, and there was absolutely nothing that the Democrats could have changed that would have made it acceptable. It was a "Democratic stinker" because anything the Democrats would have wanted would have stunk to Republicans.

Seneca:
quote:
How about our system? Will ANYONE answer those questions above?
Given how many questions posed to you that you haven't answered, I wouldn't wait.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You don't need party discipline when you're voting against an absolute stinker of a bill, hence it was easy for Republicans to oppose it.
Except, of course, the opposition started before any bill was on the table, and was ongoing through every step of the way where there was potential to make it anything but, with even the basic framework itself being a concession to Republicans based on what a large number of them had previously supported or even cosigned on as health reform options.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
You don't need party discipline when you're voting against an absolute stinker of a bill, hence it was easy for Republicans to oppose it.
Except, of course, the opposition started before any bill was on the table, and was ongoing through every step of the way where there was potential to make it anything but, with even the basic framework itself being a concession to Republicans based on what a large number of them had previously supported or even cosigned on as health reform options.
What "large number" of them were behind the original idea from the Heritage foundation? How many reps and how many senators? Then, in 2010, how many of THOSE were still in Congress? List their names and show proof in terms of votes and bill sponsorship. Go ahead and tell us, then we can all have a good laugh at this absurd myth being repeated again.

quote:
Except, of course, the opposition started before any bill was on the table, and was ongoing through every step of the way where there was potential to make it anything but
Glad you agree that it was clear to everyone that the GOP opposed it from the start, this should also put to rest this silly idea that the ACA was "sabotaged" trying to get GOP votes when they knew they wouldn't get any from the beginning.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bob Bennett
Lamar Alexander
Bob Corker
Mike Crapo
Lindsey Graham
Chuck Grassley
Judd Gregg
Arlen Specter

Were all co-signers on Wyden-Bennett, which was a very similar proposal. And Bennett and Spectre are two good examples of long standing Senators who were chewed up in the process of enforcing party discipline.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The biggest difference being that Wyden-Bennett went one step further than the ACA and outright eliminated the employe coverage model instead of just building an individual market that mirrored it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Glad you agree that it was clear to everyone that the GOP opposed it from the start, this should also put to rest this silly idea that the ACA was "sabotaged" trying to get GOP votes when they knew they wouldn't get any from the beginning.
That doesn't mean that there wasn't significant political value in trying just to make it clear that it was the GOP and not the Democrats that were being the obstinate ones. Particularly because the lie that they did not attempt to reach out and for a compromise was easy to predict, and as such the actual record is full of Democratic outreach attempts with active evidence of bad faith on the part of the Republicans throughout the process.

[ June 27, 2014, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So many Republican predictions of harm from Obamacare have proven false, starting with death panels and running through dozens of others.

This thread is still ticking away until May 2015, and guess what - so far the net benefits from Obamacare have not only been far better than predicted by every one of you who opposes it, but it also is trending better than any of us advocates predicted as well.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati:

quote:
Greg, I have no idea what Republican might be more or less accurate that the President. I don't keep track of the exact words in detail of very many politicians. Lucky for me, I can think on my own and don't need to tie myself to a specific politician out of misguided party loyalty.
Excellent statement. Who do you believe has been more accurate in their assertions regarding the Affordable Care Act, "Seriati" (as documented in your posts on Ornery) or President Obama? Surely someone who proudly thinks for himself such as you is aware of your own statements and willing to take responsibility for them.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Bob Bennett
Lamar Alexander
Bob Corker
Mike Crapo
Lindsey Graham
Chuck Grassley
Judd Gregg
Arlen Specter

Were all co-signers on Wyden-Bennett, which was a very similar proposal. And Bennett and Spectre are two good examples of long standing Senators who were chewed up in the process of enforcing party discipline.

This list is incorrect. Allen Specter was not a GOP member in 2010, or am I wrong?

Regardless, let's assume I grant you all 7 or 8 of these. I haven't checked them but for the sake of argument let's say they're correct.

what fraction of the caucus is that?
If I can find a bill that a similar fraction or even a little bit bigger of the democrats supported, will you agree that we can call that bill a "democrat plan" and hang ownership and all the moral implications of it around the current party? Will you agree to that?

If so, I wonder if you see where this is going. There are more than a few fringe nut jobs in both parties and the Democrats have come up with their fair share of crazy bills.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An interesting turn of events that happened here in my state. It seems the local democrats here don't like judges acting like judges. They want them to be partial and biased, and not rule objectively on Obamacare decisions.

This one is being denied whistleblower protections by the democrats. You know, that group that false championed whistleblowers?

quote:
A political storm has erupted in Washington state involving a whistleblower who claims she was retaliated against after raising concerns about ObamaCare's implementation.

Patricia Petersen, a hearings officer in the state's Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC), filed a whistleblower complaint alleging coercion and corruption in the OIC, which is tasked with implementing the Affordable Care Act. She said Chief Deputy James Odiorne threatened her job if she didn’t rule the way Commissioner Mike Kreidler -- a supporter of the law -- wanted.

"If a judge is told by a party to decide his cases in a certain way, or one party can threaten the judge’s job if the case is not decided in that party’s favor, then this central pillar of our democratic society is corroded,”
Petersen said at a recent hearing called by the Senate Law and Justice Committee.

One of the cases before Petersen involved Seattle Children’s Hospital, the premiere pediatric care facility in the Pacific Northwest. The hospital was kept out of the state health care exchange by Kreidler, who deemed Seattle Children’s care too expensive.

Kreidler, speaking to Fox News in October 2013, said: “You’re going to find that their business plan needs to be altered in order to really be competitive in the marketplace, so they’re offering services at the most reasonable price.”

But after Petersen granted Seattle Children’s Hospital a hearing to appeal Kreidler’s decision, Odiorne wrote this in a job evaluation: “Since your orders are legally the acts of the Commissioner, they must be orders that he supports.”


Republican lawmakers cried foul.

“She has to be completely independent,” said Republican state Sen. Randi Becker. “She has to be able to make her decisions, her rulings, based upon law, not upon somebody’s desire.”

Washington State Auditor Troy Kelley, a Democrat, denied Petersen’s request for whistleblower status. Kelley wrote, “There are other avenues available for addressing your assertion.”

Petersen was then placed on paid leave and became the subject of an investigation for mailing a copy of her original complaint to an attorney who represents Seattle Children’s Hospital. She claims the "ex parte" communication was an inadvertent mistake.

But several Democrats say Petersen is wrong about her independence. She is a 28-year employee in the OIC and, according to some, is Kreidler’s designee.

“It’s his work,” said Democratic state Sen. Adam Kline. “She is sitting at his desk when this happens. And she is emphatically not an independent judge.”

The OIC website seems to contradict that claim. In the section on appealing the commissioner’s rulings, the department writes, “Administrative hearings are legal proceedings to review the commissioner’s action before an impartial judge.” It later states, “The decision of the Chief Presiding Officer becomes the final decision of the agency and is not subject to review by the Commissioner or any member of his staff.”

Paul Guppy, a senior policy analyst for the Washington Policy Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank, said the scandal is driven by support for a law that won’t work on its own to lower the cost of health care.

“As the Affordable Care Act is pushed in Washington state, more and more of these contradictions emerge, and this case is just one of them,” Guppy said.

The insurance commissioner declined Fox News' request for an interview, saying the office was conducting its own independent personnel investigation. The lawyer doing the probe was selected by his office.

As this unsustainable colossus goes into effect, expect to see more of this. It is ironic that the democrats are wanting this judge to be partial even though it says right on the OIC website that she's supposed to be impartial. Absolutely disgusting!

Obama has done his best to try and delay and keep pushing the biggest parts of this law past any election that might affect him while he's in office, but that time is fast approaching.

As for the "death panels," just wait a few years to see what blanket rules the IPAB creates when it begins to ration care. There's a reason they've been kept on ice until Obama doesn't have to worry about the political ramifications of their actions.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, do you want to take the challenge? Do you claim that your assertions about Obamacare, as documented on Ornery, have been more accurate than President Obama's?

And it won't be a very credible argument if all you have is that you have been wrong so far but "just wait a few years to see...". We're in the 5th year since the ACA passed, and your ridiculous fear-mongering nightmares have yet to arrive. Again, that's why I put a specific date on this thread - because I have seen enough from anti-Obamacare partisans that I wanted to assemble an 18 month track record of bogus posturing and dire predictions that prove to be false.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seneca, do you want to take the challenge? Do you claim that your assertions about Obamacare, as documented on Ornery, have been more accurate than President Obama's?

And it won't be a very credible argument if all you have is that you have been wrong so far but "just wait a few years to see...". We're in the 5th year since the ACA passed, and your ridiculous fear-mongering nightmares have yet to arrive. Again, that's why I put a specific date on this thread - because I have seen enough from anti-Obamacare partisans that I wanted to assemble an 18 month track record of bogus posturing and dire predictions that prove to be false.

Stop it, just stop it. Your reasoning is absurd.

The reason the major problems with Obamacare haven't surfaced is because Obama has delayed, and delayed, and delayed this law through executive fiat. If this law went into effect when it was supposed to have with no delays at all from Obama it would be much worse than many of the dire predictions that were initially made about it.

This little game of Obama kicking the can down the road for political opportunism to avoid electoral consequences while he is in office is sick. If he were really proud of the law and confident in it he wouldn't have pushed it back so far.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reason the major problems with Obamacare haven't surfaced is because Obama has delayed, and delayed, and delayed this law through executive fiat.
Your position is logically consistent only if you see no harm from all of the provisions of Obamacare which have already gone into effect over the past 4+ years. And if that is your actual position, then that is logically inconsistent with your previous positions on Obamacare, which have never identified a large subset of the ACA that is not harmful (elimination of exclusions for pre-existing conditions, elimination of lifetime maximums, extending coverage of children to age 26, forcing insurers to spend at least 85% of premiums on medical care, setting up exchanges to offer private insurance, requiring improved digital medical record-keeping, requiring insurance policies to meet minimum coverage standards, etc.). Why didn't you tell us a long time ago that you did not think that any of these policies would be harmful?

And I still don't understand why you believe that a government program that enables tens of millions of Americans to have health insurance is bad. Particularly as we are talking about benefits not only extending to those with new insurance (Charles Gaba, whose proven track record has been far more accurate than his critics, puts the numbers at 23-28 million), but to every single American with health insurance who now cannot be thrown off their policy when they get really sick just because they may have forgotten to mention an unrelated previous illness that used to be called a pre-existing condition. These are tremendous benefits to real people, thousands of American lives are being saved from unnecessary death due to inadequate medical care.

[ June 28, 2014, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Medicaid is not insurance.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Medicaid is not insurance.
A good clarification, thank you. It is more accurate for me to say that the ACA has brought health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans through health insurance and medicaid.

Can you now explain why you think this is bad?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, SCOTUS is turning out decent opinions by the threes now...

quote:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.

The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign.

"Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News after the decision was announced.

The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." The court's four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.

But Alito held that in the case before the court, the religious objections cited were legally legitimate, under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.

"If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would," Alito wrote.

The question now before the Obama administration is how it might try to accommodate businesses that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers.

Alito suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could simply pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation it has made available to religious-oriented, not-for-profit corporations -- by letting the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator takes on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said.

Alito clarified that the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.

The Supreme Court challenge was brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The for-profit businesses challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans.

It was the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.

Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court were those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.

The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses.

The Obama administration argued it's not just about birth control, and that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages.

Nice to see that Obama got smacked down in his attempt to force people to do things against their religious views.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Medicaid is not insurance.
A good clarification, thank you. It is more accurate for me to say that the ACA has brought health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans through health insurance and medicaid.

Can you now explain why you think this is bad?

Medicaid is not desirable. It is a secured loan program, and also it undercuts doctors and forces many of them to refuse it as a form of payment, and that number increases every year. The horrifying requirements and changes that Obamacare made to regular insurance raised the cost of it and forced even more people onto Medicaid, which is a very bad thing for the reasons above and others.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Greg, I have no idea what Republican might be more or less accurate that the President. I don't keep track of the exact words in detail of very many politicians. Lucky for me, I can think on my own and don't need to tie myself to a specific politician out of misguided party loyalty.
Excellent statement. Who do you believe has been more accurate in their assertions regarding the Affordable Care Act, "Seriati" (as documented in your posts on Ornery) or President Obama? Surely someone who proudly thinks for himself such as you is aware of your own statements and willing to take responsibility for them.
As a general matter I stand behind the logic of most everything I've said (on all topics) on Ornery. As I've said to you many times, it's too early to be sure what the end results are on healthcare reform, but I see nothing to make me doubt any of the concerns I've had with it are not still valid. Whereas, its clear that a large number of the President's specific predictions where false (as any specific prediction would be likely to be found), but moreover generally, I still expect there to be more an more negative consequences revealed as this garbage legislation actually implements fully.

I think its fairly compelling that as I predicted costs are going to go up, and not down as the President claimed, for instance. I think it's pretty questionable that re-writing our entire healthcare and insurance system to the detriment of many actually did what it was supposed to do - ie insured all Americans. How many people still don't have insurance?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since medicaid is not insurance, I wonder if we have less Americans insured now than before...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Medical insurance" is shorthand for "has medical care available without substantial out-of-pocket costs".

FWIW, even Medicaid refers to itself as insurance.

"You and your family may qualify for free or low-cost health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)."
http://medicaid.gov/Need-Health-Insurance/Need-Health-Insurance.html

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know any insurance that engages in estate recovery or is refused by over 33% of all US doctors?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Almost every major plan is refused by large numbers of doctors. I just had my Aetna coverage refused today, so I'm smarting from that...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
large numbers of doctors
Large = 1/3 of all US doctors?

And given that over 70% of current doctors that are currently accepting Medicaid are refusing new Medicaid patients, the actual number may be much, much higher than 1/3...

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You need to stop being so gleeful that maybe something some liberal somewhere is doing is somehow not measuring up to the highest expectations. A little realism is in order when looking at complex systems, and I can't think of anything more complex than our national health care situation.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gleeful? There's nothing gleeful in my attitude about watching Obama and the spendocrats tearing down the greatest medical system in the world. [Frown]
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They are trying to improve the US system rather than tear down systems that work better.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Gleeful? There's nothing gleeful in my attitude about watching Obama and the spendocrats tearing down the greatest medical system in the world. [Frown]

What metrics are you using to claim the US medical system the greatest in the world?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Highest quality care available and most free in terms of people able to choose their own care with their own resources.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What an odd definition:
quote:
Highest quality care available and most free in terms of people able to choose their own care with their own resources.
By that definition, it is possible to have a system that costs twice as much per patient as any other medical system in the world, and that delivers care worse than 30-40 other countries both in terms of medical outcomes and patient satisfaction. But you would call it the best.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca - you keep saying that someday things will get as bad as you predict. Tell us when? Am I still going to be right with my predictions for May 2015? Will it be May 2016 when suddenly your nightmare scenarios emerge? How about 202?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Medicaid is not desirable. It is a secured loan program, and also it undercuts doctors and forces many of them to refuse it as a form of payment, and that number increases every year. The horrifying requirements and changes that Obamacare made to regular insurance raised the cost of it and forced even more people onto Medicaid, which is a very bad thing for the reasons above and others.
Right now the expansion of Medicaid is saving thousands of American lives every year. Republican refusal to expand Medicaid is going to produce an estimated 7,000-17,000 unnecessary American deaths per year. And so far this is all happening without your nightmare scenarios occurring.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's tough to find effective metrics comparing medical care across countries and regions. A lot of the international studies use circular reasoning, essentially the fact that they are provided as a social service means they always come out ahead of systems that are provided on other basis, even if the tangible care elements are not equivalent. Fair enough, one can certainly be of the opinion that poor care for everyone is better than average care for the vast majority, but one could also be of the other opinion.

In my view, US care is very high quality on most medical measures. Its very high quality on the innovation measures (though it sometimes lags risk taking jurisdictions). It's very high quality on testing availability and quality. It's very high on availability of care.

It's also excessively expensive, incredibly bureacratic and exceeedingly wastefull of cash and medical resources. It also suffers slightly in distribution of care (though its actually hard to find untreated people, its easy to find undertreated people), though I disagree that this is from a lack of socialism and believe its from a poorly implemented excessive implementation thereof.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Right now the expansion of Medicaid is saving thousands of American lives every year. Republican refusal to expand Medicaid is going to produce an estimated 7,000-17,000 unnecessary American deaths per year. And so far this is all happening without your nightmare scenarios occurring.

And Democratic insistence on increasing the welfare state is resulting in 10's of thousands of unnecessary murders and hundreds of thousands of incarcerations per year! And lets not forget that Democratic socialist medical care has artificially inflated the cost of healthcare forcing millions of people into bankruptcy over the years!

Oh the horrors of the partisan mind! How can we all sleep at night when we're burdened by the impositions of the willfully partisan and imbalanced!

I must repent, you've shown me the light! Oh my, arguably a policy I favor may have a negative consequence, I must expunge from my memory the fact that it has overwhelming positive impacts, no, no one can believe in balancing the scales or that a net good is something to strive for, any harm caused no matter how small and how great the gains means a policy is utterly wrong!

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And Democratic insistence on increasing the welfare state is resulting in 10's of thousands of unnecessary murders and hundreds of thousands of incarcerations per year! And lets not forget that Democratic socialist medical care has artificially inflated the cost of healthcare forcing millions of people into bankruptcy over the years!
I have to admit that is a pretty bizarre statement.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati-
quote:
And Democratic insistence on increasing the welfare state is resulting in 10's of thousands of unnecessary murders and hundreds of thousands of incarcerations per year! And lets not forget that Democratic socialist medical care has artificially inflated the cost of healthcare forcing millions of people into bankruptcy over the years!
Can you please break this down and explain what you mean.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 48 pages: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  46  47  48   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1