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 » Obama urges followers to attack 'unenlightened' family over Thanksgiving dinner (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Obama urges followers to attack 'unenlightened' family over Thanksgiving dinner
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Given the pattern of how much medical care costs rise every year, and those rises have little to do with insurance administration costs, that is going to be impossible.
You're wrong. The existing board with a similar goal (but no regulatory power) has recommended improvements for many years. The recommendations are ignored by the corrupt members of Congress who are beholden to campaign contributors who benefit from the lack of regulation.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 
The Board is also legally prohibited from reducing benefits or changing qualification standards, so a worst-case scenario is that they can't do anything. There's no scenario under which the Board can decrease the standard of care, nevermind cause deaths.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  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 
"These payment advisory boards are very much death panels.

That's exactly what they do by cutting reimbursement over time."

What do you think of the death panels the insurance companies use today? Keep in mind that every insurance policy can have its own death panel criteria, which are completely unregulated and can't be appealed to a "higher authority".

You really are skirting close to the edge of espousing completely unsupportable views. You've been trapped by your own faulty logic several times in the last few days, and instead of proving the doubters wrong or admitting you are wrong (hah!) you simply stop responding.

So, tell us about the death panels insurance companies use today and why you find them preferable to what you think Obama has in store for Granny.

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:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
These payment advisory boards are very much death panels.
What advisory boards are you referring to?

There is a single Independent Payment Advisory Board that is tasked with evaluating the Medicare program to find cost savings that don't affect the quality of coverage. In other words they are an auditing organization which is tasked with finding and eliminating inefficiencies in the current system. Or do you not believe there are inefficiencies to be found so the only way to cut costs is to cut care?

Note that even this is for Medicare only - an existing government health program and, while bundled with the ACA, is not actually related to the health exchanges or coverage standards that are the major features of the bill.

Since so many private policies are being canceled and their replacements are so costly that people can't afford them and still don't qualify for those subsidies, many people are being forced onto medicare/medicaid.
And with the massive bait-switch medicaid expansion going on with the states, it will be even worse.

So that board will have quite a large pool to cut reimbursements on.


quote:
You're wrong. The existing board with a similar goal (but no regulatory power) has recommended improvements for many years. The recommendations are ignored by the corrupt members of Congress who are beholden to campaign contributors who benefit from the lack of regulation.
quote:
The Board is also legally prohibited from reducing benefits or changing qualification standards, so a worst-case scenario is that they can't do anything. There's no scenario under which the Board can decrease the standard of care, nevermind cause deaths.
Wrong and wrong.

This is from whitehouse.gov:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/20/facts-about-independent-payment-advisory-board

quote:
Congress then has the power to accept or reject these recommendations. If Congress rejects the recommendations, and Medicare spending exceeds specific targets, Congress must either enact policies that achieve equivalent savings or let the Secretary of Health and Human Services follow IPAB’s recommendations.
So since Congress is incapable of passing almost anything, HHS WILL do what the board tells it to. End of story.

quote:
What do you think of the death panels the insurance companies use today? Keep in mind that every insurance policy can have its own death panel criteria, which are completely unregulated and can't be appealed to a "higher authority".
At least in a private system you can keep looking or worst case sell your house and pay out of pocket. In the medicaid/medicare dominated world, doctors won't even be able to take cash for tax purposes and case-load volume restrictions from the government.

quote:
You really are skirting close to the edge of espousing completely unsupportable views. You've been trapped by your own faulty logic several times in the last few days, and instead of proving the doubters wrong or admitting you are wrong (hah!) you simply stop responding.
You may want to refresh yourself with the guidelines, rules and organization of this website, you know, the ones you agreed to when you joined:
http://ornery.org/about.html
quote:
If you post something and someone disagrees with your idea, their disagreement does not erase your original statement. There is no need to answer except to clarify or offer new material.
Maybe you missed that?

quote:
So, tell us about the death panels insurance companies use today and why you find them preferable to what you think Obama has in store for Granny.
There are no death panels in the private market. You can always shop elsewhere. In a government dominated system, you can shop for one answer then you're done.

[ December 09, 2013, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are no death panels in the private market. You can always shop elsewhere.
Well, no. There are a whole bunch of death panels in the private market. But if one of them turns you down, you can always hope -- sometimes fruitlessly -- that there is another option you can afford. Of course, that remains true in this situation, as nothing is stopping someone from paying for treatment out of pocket.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But post-expanded medicare/medicaid world, there may be few to no providers that will be paid out of pocket thanks to our lovely set of tax and accounting laws for providers who accept medicaid/medicare and the restrictions on their practices and patients because of it.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So since Congress is incapable of passing almost anything, HHS WILL do what the board tells it to. End of story.
But the law says that the board may not reduce quality of care.

It's apparent that you don't think the board will follow this law.

But then why are you worried about what the law says at all, if you're convinced that someone is going to try to kill old people by denying them benefits regardless of what the law says?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
So since Congress is incapable of passing almost anything, HHS WILL do what the board tells it to. End of story.
But the law says that the board may not reduce quality of care.

It's apparent that you don't think the board will follow this law.

But then why are you worried about what the law says at all, if you're convinced that someone is going to try to kill old people by denying them benefits regardless of what the law says?

I think you meant, But the law says that the board may not reduce quality of care. Period. Now it's for real.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*shrug* that's what the law says. Although I understand it's comforting to pretend otherwise, not all data points and claims that contradict the right's propaganda are of equivalent value.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 scifibum:
quote:
So since Congress is incapable of passing almost anything, HHS WILL do what the board tells it to. End of story.
But the law says that the board may not reduce quality of care.

It's apparent that you don't think the board will follow this law.

But then why are you worried about what the law says at all, if you're convinced that someone is going to try to kill old people by denying them benefits regardless of what the law says?

The board will resolve the conflict of finding some way to reduce costs but not lowering care by lowering care and then saying that they're not. Messaging is everything for the Obama administration. After all, he never said you could keep your plan. He REALLY said "you can keep your plan IF..." but for some reason the microphone must have cut out for the "IF..." every time, all several thousands times...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a difference between what Obama promised and what actually got passed and signed into law, of course.

I'm not even a big fan of Obamacare, it's just that nutty and/or cynical disinformation campaigns about it are much, much worse. It's funny that you're picking up the GOP party line since you claim not to be a fan of either party.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 scifibum:
There's a difference between what Obama promised and what actually got passed and signed into law, of course.

I'm not even a big fan of Obamacare, it's just that nutty and/or cynical disinformation campaigns about it are much, much worse. It's funny that you're picking up the GOP party line since you claim not to be a fan of either party.

Lets see, this bill was so long and bloated and confusing that most of Congress voted on it before reading it. Then you get the famous Pelosi quote on how to know what's in the bill, and finally you have so many parts of the bill that leave things vague and up to "HHS discretion" that after all of that, when Obama goes on TV and makes exasperated and annoyed promises/responses to critics that "if you like your plan, you can keep it," and 'no one is trying to take your plan/doctor away,' it's not so shocking that given all of this people expected Obama to be accurate in that statement. I'm not surprised that he wasn't but many of his supporters sure were.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Charles in Charge
Member
Member # 6879

 - posted      Profile for Charles in Charge   Email Charles in Charge       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's my attempt to hijack this thread.

I think whats interesting about the IPAB is that it has essentially legislative power that can only be blocked if the House, Senate and White House all agree to block it. In addition, PPACA specifies that Congress has only a 7 month window to repeal IPAB, after which we're stuck with it forever. This seems pretty blatantly unconstitutional (a current Congress can't bind a future Congress), so it's unlikely to survive. But I think it's interesting that it even got in the current law. link.

Also, the Democrat's decision to get rid of appointment filibusters may have been so they can control this board at least through 2020 and possibly beyond regardless of which party controls the Senate or the White House link.

I haven't read the text of the law myself and am relying pretty heavily on Cato for this analysis. Anyone have an opposing viewpoint they'd like to share?

Posts: 110 | Registered: Nov 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 
quote:
I think whats interesting about the IPAB is that it has essentially legislative power that can only be blocked if the House, Senate and White House all agree to block it
I don't see how this is much different from any other agency which has administrative discretion. Take the FCC, for instance. They have almost complete autonomy over the airwaves and can set essentially any rules they want regarding how they are used. Only through new legislation can that authority be circumscribed. The IPAB is being given similar authority over Medicare administration - they are now rule makers for that agency, bound by a certain set of constraints. They can't change what is or is not legal - so they aren't passing laws. They are settings rules for an agency regarding it's policies and procedures. If congress wishes to bind it further (by rejecting a proposal) then it must essentially pass new legislation to do that.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  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:
"If you post something and someone disagrees with your idea, their disagreement does not erase your original statement. There is no need to answer except to clarify or offer new material."

Maybe you missed that?

You respond to a lot of stuff, but somehow far less often when your logic simply falls apart. I'm not referring to just when I don't get responses. That's a normal human tendency, but it increases the perception that you are simply insisting on a fixed point of view rather than considering the weaknesses in that view when they are pointed out.

"There are no death panels in the private market. You can always shop elsewhere."

And sometimes, like here, I just shake my head that you seem willfully blind to those holes in your thinking. Here, for instance, people can in theory shop elsewhere (assuming the pre-existing condition for which they are not able to get treatment will be allowed), but most of the time only to a limited extent, and when they do the new insurance company has its own death panel. That's the point. Get it?

"Then you get the famous Pelosi quote on how to know what's in the bill..."

I love this meme [Smile] . The 2012 Budget was about 3500 pages long. Do you think anyone read that? But, wait! There's more! The 2013 US federal tax code altogether is close to 74,000 pages long! Have you spent any time reading that to figure out how much in taxes you should pay?

On the other hand, talking points blogs rarely run longer than two pages, which makes it much easier to remember the highlights. That comes at the expense of having actual facts, but those are not important to most people.

[ December 10, 2013, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

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:
You respond to a lot of stuff, but somehow far less often when your logic simply falls apart. I'm not referring to just when I don't get responses. That's a normal human tendency, but it increases the perception that you are simply insisting on a fixed point of view rather than considering the weaknesses in that view when they are pointed out.
I often don't respond when I consider a statement not worth responding to.

quote:
And sometimes, like here, I just shake my head that you seem willfully blind to those holes in your thinking. Here, for instance, people can in theory shop elsewhere (assuming the pre-existing condition for which they are not able to get treatment will be allowed), but most of the time only to a limited extent, and when they do the new insurance company has its own death panel. That's the point. Get it?
Did you miss the discussion about what happens to doctors who accept medicaid/medicare and their ability to take any out-of-pocket cash business on top of that? Apparently.

quote:
The 2012 Budget was about 3500 pages long.
Which was mostly a copy/paste and small additions from previous budgets, and everyone knew where the added sections were. Same with the tax tax code, it grew gradually over time. Not that I am a fan of either, I'd prefer a 2 paragraph tax code and a much smaller budget.
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 MattP:
quote:
I think whats interesting about the IPAB is that it has essentially legislative power that can only be blocked if the House, Senate and White House all agree to block it
I don't see how this is much different from any other agency which has administrative discretion. Take the FCC, for instance. They have almost complete autonomy over the airwaves and can set essentially any rules they want regarding how they are used. Only through new legislation can that authority be circumscribed. The IPAB is being given similar authority over Medicare administration - they are now rule makers for that agency, bound by a certain set of constraints. They can't change what is or is not legal - so they aren't passing laws. They are settings rules for an agency regarding it's policies and procedures. If congress wishes to bind it further (by rejecting a proposal) then it must essentially pass new legislation to do that.
Sounds like you are starting to see how most of what the executive branch does is unconstitutional and how Congress's delegation of that authority to them is also unconstitutional. This is one of the primary focuses behind the Liberty Amendments.

These "agency rules" have the force of law in the US. The CBO and GAO tried to estimate how many Congressional statutes and executive agency rules that have the force of law exist, and they lost count when they hit 100k, at which point they gave up and said the number was 'incalculable.' How does that make you feel?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
*shrug* that's what the law says. Although I understand it's comforting to pretend otherwise, not all data points and claims that contradict the right's propaganda are of equivalent value.

Wait, the law says a lot of things but they didn't apply did they? You know they didn't. The law changes at whim, surely you've seen that over the last few months (let me know if you didn't, I can send you to the threads where we discuss it).

I think you've clearly missed a lot of recent events. Period.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  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 Seneca:
The board will resolve the conflict of finding some way to reduce costs but not lowering care by lowering care and then saying that they're not.

I think this is the most interesting point you made. This is the absolute truth of how this will go. The Board will exclude treatments, even very effective ones based on cost, and then make a claim that their decision is maintaining or improving the quality of care. At which point, what does it even mean to have the words written down in the first place?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Board will exclude treatments, even very effective ones based on cost, and then make a claim that their decision is maintaining or improving the quality of care.
I'm curious: do you think private insurers do not do this now?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Seneca:
The board will resolve the conflict of finding some way to reduce costs but not lowering care by lowering care and then saying that they're not.

I think this is the most interesting point you made. This is the absolute truth of how this will go. The Board will exclude treatments, even very effective ones based on cost, and then make a claim that their decision is maintaining or improving the quality of care. At which point, what does it even mean to have the words written down in the first place?

Possible but there is currently a huge amount of research looking at team approach medicine that has been shown to significantly reduce costs AND improve patient outcomes. Anyone who works in a hospital can tell you about massive amounts of ineffecientcy and patients who spend extra days as inpatients because an MD is not available to release them.

Insurance companies are notorious for denying or significantly delaying expensive treatments. It is not uncommon for these delays to outlive those needing the treatments. A new game we are seeing is hospitals that hold patients for observation but never admit them. The insurance companies are refusing to pay inpatient rates or totally denying payment even though the patient assumes they have been admitted

I find it ironic that ACA opponents totally ignore the existing unethical practices of many insurance providers (not all) and fixate on an unlikely possible scenario. If these panels get out of hand the tax payers will scream and they will be reigned in whereas private insurance companies may get a slap on the hand fine and it is business as usual.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The Board will exclude treatments, even very effective ones based on cost, and then make a claim that their decision is maintaining or improving the quality of care.
I'm curious: do you think private insurers do not do this now?
[to Seneca] or is what frightens you is that now the "death panels" will be theoretically accountable to the Democratic process, and discoverable through Freedom of Information?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The Board will exclude treatments, even very effective ones based on cost, and then make a claim that their decision is maintaining or improving the quality of care.
I'm curious: do you think private insurers do not do this now?
[to Seneca] or is what frightens you is that now the "death panels" will be theoretically accountable to the Democratic process, and discoverable through Freedom of Information?
The obvious outcome is that similar to what happened with the IRS, this Board will start making payment decisions related to people's politics.
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 Mynnion:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Seneca:
The board will resolve the conflict of finding some way to reduce costs but not lowering care by lowering care and then saying that they're not.

I think this is the most interesting point you made. This is the absolute truth of how this will go. The Board will exclude treatments, even very effective ones based on cost, and then make a claim that their decision is maintaining or improving the quality of care. At which point, what does it even mean to have the words written down in the first place?

Possible but there is currently a huge amount of research looking at team approach medicine that has been shown to significantly reduce costs AND improve patient outcomes. Anyone who works in a hospital can tell you about massive amounts of ineffecientcy and patients who spend extra days as inpatients because an MD is not available to release them.

Insurance companies are notorious for denying or significantly delaying expensive treatments. It is not uncommon for these delays to outlive those needing the treatments. A new game we are seeing is hospitals that hold patients for observation but never admit them. The insurance companies are refusing to pay inpatient rates or totally denying payment even though the patient assumes they have been admitted

I find it ironic that ACA opponents totally ignore the existing unethical practices of many insurance providers (not all) and fixate on an unlikely possible scenario. If these panels get out of hand the tax payers will scream and they will be reigned in whereas private insurance companies may get a slap on the hand fine and it is business as usual.

But in a private system you can always go somewhere else or worst scenario sell your house and go into debt and pay out of pocket. In a deep-post ACA world, many people will be forced onto medicaid and medicare, and many doctors will no longer be able to take cash, so this Board denies care it doesn't matter how resourceful you are or how much cash you dig up, you're dead if they cut you off.

I'll take the system that lets me have personal control and accountability over that any day.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The obvious outcome is that similar to what happened with the IRS, this Board will start making payment decisions related to people's politics.
Let me point out that this particular lie -- that the IRS persecuted people based on their political leanings -- is still being trotted out to justify further paranoia, just like I said it would be.

-------

quote:
But in a private system you can always go somewhere else or worst scenario sell your house and go into debt and pay out of pocket.
No doubt if money is no object, you could fly to Mexico and have the procedure done.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
quote:
No doubt if money is no object, you could fly to Mexico and have the procedure done.
Which is what a lot of people are already doing these days in our current private system, because private healthcare is a lot cheaper outside the US. Even in other developed countries with universal healthcare, the unsubsidized cost of many basic procedures and devices can as low as 10% of the US cost.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep. So the specific fear here -- that medical procedures that people with infinite amounts of money can currently afford to buy even if their insurance will not cover them will cease to be available because doctors will be prevented from accepting money in exchange for treatment for some reason -- is rather silly.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 MattP:
quote:
No doubt if money is no object, you could fly to Mexico and have the procedure done.
Which is what a lot of people are already doing these days in our current private system, because private healthcare is a lot cheaper outside the US. Even in other developed countries with universal healthcare, the unsubsidized cost of many basic procedures and devices can as low as 10% of the US cost.
Except we shouldn't have to do that and that is a terrible thing to force onto us. We have the highest quality healthcare system in the world, I'd rather keep that and keep it as a for-profit private industry rather than sabotage it so when we want quality healthcare we have to fly to an impoverished, corrupt nation and hope to God that we find a decent doctor there, because there won't be many...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"many doctors will no longer be able to take cash"

I'm not familiar with this provision of the ACA. Can you explain this and cite the part of the law that has this effect?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 scifibum:
"many doctors will no longer be able to take cash"

I'm not familiar with this provision of the ACA. Can you explain this and cite the part of the law that has this effect?

The ACA is causing many private plans to be canceled and many other private plans to increase in cost to the point where people either don't qualify for subsidies or many people won't be able to afford them even with subsidies. At this point they are forced into medicaid/medicare, and thanks to the ACA's bait and switch offer to the state's for 3 free years of medicaid expansion funding, you will see them explode.

If you've ever worked for a doctor's office you know that doctors who take medicaid/medicare operate on razor thin margins, and have to submit to harsher tax scrutiny than other doctors. This limits/inhibits their ability to take cash or payment outside of "approved channels" as well as forces them to cram their schedules full of an overload of medicaid patients to make ends meet. If you know any doctors that accept medicaid/medicare, ask them what restrictions come with it, you may be surprised.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This limits/inhibits their ability to take cash or payment outside of "approved channels" as well as forces them to cram their schedules full of an overload of medicaid patients to make ends meet. If you know any doctors that accept medicaid/medicare, ask them what restrictions come with it, you may be surprised.
I'm having a hard time with this, because it makes no sense. If the margins are too thin with Medicaid patients, then cash patients would be really desirable. Tax scrutiny would only be a problem for doctors who don't want to pay taxes.

Can you cite something other than "if you work for a doctor" or "if you talk to a doctor"? You seem to bring this particular claim up a lot - it seems like an important part of your opposition to the ACA - so I'm interested in whether it's actually true, and what you've explained doesn't make sense.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
But in a private system you can always go somewhere else or worst scenario sell your house and go into debt and pay out of pocket. In a deep-post ACA world, many people will be forced onto medicaid and medicare, and many doctors will no longer be able to take cash, so this Board denies care it doesn't matter how resourceful you are or how much cash you dig up, you're dead if they cut you off.

I'll take the system that lets me have personal control and accountability over that any day.

Even if this last part were true, your "worst case scenario" is hardly the worst case for many people. You are assuming that they can pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket, that they can sell their house (have you not being paying attention?), that they have a house to sell, and that they can get tens or hundreds of thousands on credit.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
We have the highest quality healthcare system in the world, I'd rather keep that and keep it as a for-profit private industry rather than sabotage it so when we want quality healthcare we have to fly to an impoverished, corrupt nation and hope to God that we find a decent doctor there, because there won't be many...

Do we? What exactly do you know about health care in other countries? Why must it be an impoverished, corrupt nation? (Pssst. Is it because only impoverished, corrupt nations don't have universal healthcare?)
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  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 
It's not only impoverished, corrupt nations that people are going to. As I pointed out, the private options in even developed countries with universal healthcare are much less expensive than in the US. Also those private options actually exist, so the idea that you would no longer be permitted to purchase additional services on the open market doesn't really carry water.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  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 
Seneca
quote:
But in a private system you can always go somewhere else or worst scenario sell your house and go into debt and pay out of pocket. In a deep-post ACA world, many people will be forced onto medicaid and medicare, and many doctors will no longer be able to take cash, so this Board denies care it doesn't matter how resourceful you are or how much cash you dig up, you're dead if they cut you off.

I'll take the system that lets me have personal control and accountability over that any day.

Because insurance companies accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. Oh wait that is the ACA.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  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 
"The obvious outcome is that similar to what happened with the IRS, this Board will start making payment decisions related to people's politics."

Sheer paranoia, unfounded, unprovable but regrettably unrebuttable because you can't prove that particular negative. If you are old enough to remember, Clinton killed Foster, the simple reason being that nobody could prove he didn't.

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 
Al-I think the tea party was targeted. Not because of their political position but because the people who are responsible to verify a non-political agenda at the IRS are lazy. Lets face it the names they used screamed "GOP."

Also I thought it was Hillary that killed Foster.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  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:
I'm having a hard time with this, because it makes no sense. If the margins are too thin with Medicaid patients, then cash patients would be really desirable. Tax scrutiny would only be a problem for doctors who don't want to pay taxes.

Can you cite something other than "if you work for a doctor" or "if you talk to a doctor"? You seem to bring this particular claim up a lot - it seems like an important part of your opposition to the ACA - so I'm interested in whether it's actually true, and what you've explained doesn't make sense.

In a bit I will when I get time later, but even if those tax issues are fixed, you will see doctors dropping medicaid/medicare like flies with this expansion. Already many doctors try and avoid dealing with it. It will exasperate the doctor shortage as it is.

quote:
Even if this last part were true, your "worst case scenario" is hardly the worst case for many people. You are assuming that they can pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket, that they can sell their house (have you not being paying attention?), that they have a house to sell, and that they can get tens or hundreds of thousands on credit.
Americans already can and do get this kind of credit for stupid things like TVs and wasteful spending. At least with healthcare it'd be something worthwhile.

quote:
Do we? What exactly do you know about health care in other countries? Why must it be an impoverished, corrupt nation? (Pssst. Is it because only impoverished, corrupt nations don't have universal healthcare?)
quote:
It's not only impoverished, corrupt nations that people are going to. As I pointed out, the private options in even developed countries with universal healthcare are much less expensive than in the US. Also those private options actually exist, so the idea that you would no longer be permitted to purchase additional services on the open market doesn't really carry water.
Because in socialized countries the government maintains a functional legal monopoly on the most advanced forms of care and equipment. In the US this already exists in a few places with the CON system.


quote:
Because insurance companies accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. Oh wait that is the ACA.
The stated goal by some of the ACA's authors is to fail and collapse our current private insurance industry. And given the forecasts for the young and health not signing up, they are on track to do it.


quote:
Sheer paranoia, unfounded, unprovable but regrettably unrebuttable because you can't prove that particular negative. If you are old enough to remember, Clinton killed Foster, the simple reason being that nobody could prove he didn't.
It's very sad that it will take the destruction of our healthcare system to convince you.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
Seneca
quote:
quote:Because insurance companies accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. Oh wait that is the ACA.

The stated goal by some of the ACA's authors is to fail and collapse our current private insurance industry. And given the forecasts for the young and health not signing up, they are on track to do it.

You have made the argument that someone can simply choose another insurer if they are not satisfied with the denial of treatment. That is absolutely not true. Your comment is a non-answer.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  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 Mynnion:
Seneca
quote:
quote:Because insurance companies accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. Oh wait that is the ACA.

The stated goal by some of the ACA's authors is to fail and collapse our current private insurance industry. And given the forecasts for the young and health not signing up, they are on track to do it.

You have made the argument that someone can simply choose another insurer if they are not satisfied with the denial of treatment. That is absolutely not true. Your comment is a non-answer.
Not only can they choose another insurer, if they fail to find any insurer after a while in our current system they can scrape together whatever cash they can find and pay out of pocket. In 10-15 years in a post-ACA world, that will no longer be possible in this country.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

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