Obama Care vs Republicans

[Lamplighter]

Are people in the US prepared for a government shut down
for more than 2 weeks due to the GOP-obsession with Obamacare ?
That's when "Debt Ceiling" will supersede all the budget disagreements ?

This article starts out talking about the possibility of Obama
circumventing the Congress on the Dept Ceiling by some how invoking
the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Politico
Manu Raju, Jake Sherman and Carrie Budoff Brown
10/2/13

Wall Street comes to Washington. Will it matter? — Get ready for 14th amendment talk

Section 4 of the Reconstruction Era 14th amendment holds that
“[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned

But then it also gets into the current stew of yesterday's shut down of the government...

<snip>A harsh reality began setting into Capitol Hill …

The U.S. government may not reopen until the two parties reach a deal to raise the national debt ceiling. …
[i]f the standoff continues to creep toward the Oct. 17 deadline to raise the $16.7 trillion national debt ceiling,
the two issues will become intertwined — and potentially intractable.

House Republican leaders and top Senate Democrats privately began discussing this increasingly likely possibility Tuesday,
but the two sides have yet to engage in any direct negotiations in the acrimonious budget dispute …
Within the next few days, if House Republicans don’t accept a Senate plan to open the government until mid-November,
Reid is highly unlikely to accept a budget deal if it does not increase the debt ceiling, Democratic sources said Tuesday.

“If the House GOP won’t back the Senate’s stopgap plan by later this week,
Democrats are prepared to argue that it makes little sense to agree to a short-term spending bill
if Congress is forced to resolve another fiscal crisis in just a matter of days.
… A White House official said Tuesday night that the president could get behind Reid’s strategy.

… Republicans were internally weighing including a debt ceiling hike in their demands
to convene a House-Senate conference committee to discuss a bill to reopen the government.
In the coming days, the GOP leadership is likely to change its rhetoric,
with Republicans arguing about government funding and the debt ceiling in the same breath.”<snip>

Somehow, and I don't yet understand it, the GOP wants a Conference Committee
because by procedural rules, a vote will require 60% of the Congress (Senate filibuster ?),
not a majority of 51% as it is now.

[Jesus]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Are people in the US prepared for a government shut down
for more than 2 weeks due to the GOP-obsession with Obamacare ?
That's when "Debt Ceiling" will supersede all the budget disagreements ?

This article starts out talking about the possibility of Obama
circumventing the Congress on the Dept Ceiling by some how invoking
the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.


Politico
Manu Raju, Jake Sherman and Carrie Budoff Brown
10/2/13

Wall Street comes to Washington. Will it matter? — Get ready for 14th amendment talk


But then it also gets into the current stew of yesterday's shut down of the government...



Somehow, and I don't yet understand it, the GOP wants a Conference Committee
because by procedural rules, a vote will require 60% of the Congress (Senate filibuster ?),
not a majority of 51% as it is now.

The GOP wants a conference committee, because they're trying to open negotiations on the things they want. Dems have offered this numerous times in the last 6 months, and each time it's been rejected.

The GOP now want to be seen as the reasonable party, so by suggesting negotiations, it may look to the less informed citizens, as though the Democrats are the real party blocking this, and shutting down the government.

Also, negotiations happen when two opposing sides both have something the other one wants. This definitely isn't the case. Keeping the country open and paying it's already accrued bills used to be a bi-partisan position.

The issues that are they are now left with:

Medical device tax - I'm not sure of both sides of this argument, but it is unpopular on both sides, but I read something the other day explaining how that was how the whole law was helping to be funded, so cutting it, may seem reasonable, but there is a reason most of the GOP wants to do it immediately.

Treat congressmen the same as ordinary Americans - this is just a massive roundabout way of slicing the benefit packages of all of their staffers, and is an appalling thing to do, dressed up in the American flag.

Delay Obamacare for a year - This is purely a way to ensure victory in next years midterms. There is no other reason or justification for it. A fired up right wing base will flip the senate (which it may do regardless), and the gerrymandering in house districts make it already super difficult for the dems to take it back.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Jesus

The GOP wants a conference committee, because they're trying to open negotiations on the things they want. Dems have offered this numerous times in the last 6 months, and each time it's been rejected.

The GOP now want to be seen as the reasonable party, so by suggesting negotiations, it may look to the less informed citizens, as though the Democrats are the real party blocking this, and shutting down the government.

Also, negotiations happen when two opposing sides both have something the other one wants. This definitely isn't the case. Keeping the country open and paying it's already accrued bills used to be a bi-partisan position.



The issues that are they are now left with:

Medical device tax - I'm not sure of both sides of this argument, but it is unpopular on both sides, but I read something the other day explaining how that was how the whole law was helping to be funded, so cutting it, may seem reasonable, but there is a reason most of the GOP wants to do it immediately.

Treat congressmen the same as ordinary Americans - this is just a massive roundabout way of slicing the benefit packages of all of their staffers, and is an appalling thing to do, dressed up in the American flag.

Delay Obamacare for a year - This is purely a way to ensure victory in next years midterms. There is no other reason or justification for it. A fired up right wing base will flip the senate (which it may do regardless), and the gerrymandering in house districts make it already super difficult for the dems to take it back.

Why would anyone want to negotiate for something they don't WANT?

Yes, cutting a new tax, especially an arbitrary one like the medical devices tax, is quite popular with the Republicans.

The people want the Congress (all of them), to have the same Obamacare plans that we're going to have - no more, and no less.

So that was passed - but then the Feds got a 75% exemption (which I don't understand HOW that happened to slip by, but it did), which covered SOME of the office staff and Congress members, but not ALL of them are Fed. employees - so they have no 75% exemption.

What a shame, some of them will have to suffer with the same Obamacare plans as all the rest of us. Where's my sad little violin?

No, we REALLY don't want Obamacare - really. We were sold a bunch of lies about it:

*you can keep your current plan
*you can keep your current doctor
*your premiums will be less
*Grandma will like having a pain pill instead of proper medical treatment, because she's old.

So far, only lower premiums are true, and only for those with either low income, or pre existing conditions.

Everybody else is paying more - the more you earn, the more you pay, in any of their plans, and each plan can vary widely from state to state.

Personally, I'd like to see a national health care plan, but not one run by the gov't. They can pass laws to regulate it, but I don't want the Feds running my health care. Just like food processing. The feds regulate it, but I don't want them growing the beans, canning the beans, etc.

Let the farmer grow the food, and the doctor and health insurer, handle the health care, in accordance with good regulations, of course.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

The people want the Congress (all of them), to have the same Obamacare plans that we're going to have - no more, and no less.

So that was passed - but then the Feds got a 75% exemption (which I don't understand HOW that happened to slip by, but it did),

Both of those are simply lies. Maybe you're lying, or maybe you're just passing on lies that you believe.

Under the ACA, Congresspeople and their staffs are the only people who are explicitly forced onto the exchanges; their employer-provided plans cancelled by the law. While I think that's a good thing, it is explicitly NOT "the same" thing that everybody else gets. Most professionals on their level in the private sector will keep their employer-provided plans.

The so called "exemption" (exemption from what?) that they will be getting is the employer contribution that they had been getting, and that most professionals in the private sector will be getting for their private plans, will be available for them to buy insurance on the market. Something similar is often available in the private sector when you decide to use your spouse's insurance, and get cash instead of coverage. In this case, they are forced onto the exchanges instead of deciding to opt out, and they get money for the exchange instead of cash, so they actually have a worse deal than their private sector equivalents.

Giving them the same treatment as everyone else would mean letting them keep their employer-provided Blue Cross Blue Shield plans.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

No, we REALLY don't want Obamacare - really. We were sold a bunch of lies about it:

*you can keep your current plan
*you can keep your current doctor
*your premiums will be less
*Grandma will like having a pain pill instead of proper medical treatment, because she's old.

So far, only lower premiums are true, and only for those with either low income, or pre existing conditions.

When you make statements like these, it sounds like you are speaking knowledgably, for everyone. But your statements are flat out not true. I still have my current plan, I still have my current doctor and I have no idea about premiums since my policy doesn't expire for another 6 months. And for the last damn time, there are no death panels. Grandma will get the treatment she needs.

[Lamplighter]

But if Adak doesn't keep his "death panels" and "Grandma" fables going,
he would be giving lie to another of his most recent secret fears...

Are you still naive enough to believe that personal sexual information
you give to your doctor, required by the federal government, will be kept private?

All three of these false rumors come from the same person, Betsy McCaughey
... as was pointed out by UT in post #4 of this thread ( in this link )

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

But if Adak doesn't keep his "death panels" and "Grandma" fables going,
he would be giving lie to another of his most recent secret fears...



All three of these false rumors come from the same person, Betsy McCaughey
... as was pointed out by UT in post #4 of this thread ( in this link )

Frankly, I didn't think about a "death panel" at all, until I heard Obama say "maybe we just send Grandma home with a pain pill, instead" (of an expensive treatment).

That was your boy, right there. In broad daylight. I'm not sure about the word "Grandma" however. He sort of slurred that one word.

Then I heard about these commissions in Great Britain. They decide what treatments (if they're expensive), will be used, for what type of patients. The older you get, the fewer expensive treatments you qualify for, or the longer you have to wait.

Which I fully understand - you have to manage costs in any insurance plan, whether it's ACA or not. But when the public cheered Obama right after he said that, I was quite sure that they didn't understand just what he was saying would be done here.

Because 95% of the time, the "send them home with a pain pill" will be "send them home to die", since the expensive treatment for the elderly would probably be a cancer treatment, or a transplant of some kind.

You post a link to ONE, just ONE article from ANY Great Britain newspaper or BBC, about a NHS patient over the age of 65 years, who received a bone marrow transplant, or an organ transplant, and I'll re-consider the validity of what I've been hearing (and read on line).

I believe you'll find there are none, unless it was done overseas. You know, in some advanced health care country - like the US.

Australia has a two-tier system. Everyone has a basic NHS service account, but if you want very good health care, you better have your private insurance account, as well. It can get pretty ugly pretty fast, otherwise, for the important stuff.The medical care is OK, but the waiting periods are dreadfully long.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

You post a link to ONE, just ONE article from ANY Great Britain newspaper or BBC, about a NHS patient over the age of 65 years, who received a bone marrow transplant, or an organ transplant, and I'll re-consider the validity of what I've been hearing (and read on line).

Individual patients aren't generally going to make the news, so that's a sort of silly request.

However, trivia to the rescue!

• The oldest recorded recipient of an organ in the UK was an 85-year-old kidney patient.
• The oldest recipient of a cornea transplant in the UK was 104.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>You post a link to ONE, just ONE article from ANY Great Britain newspaper or BBC, about a NHS patient over the age of 65 years, who received a bone marrow transplant, or an organ transplant, and I'll re-consider the validity of what I've been hearing (and read on line).

I believe you'll find there are none, unless it was done overseas. You know, in some advanced health care country - like the US.
<snip>

A simple Google Scholar search turned up this article...

Heart 2000;83:505–510
• Cardiovascular medicine
Survival of patients with a new diagnosis of heart failure: a population based study
• Accepted 31 January 2000

Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the survival of a population based cohort of patients with incident (new) heart failure and the clinical features associated with mortality.
DESIGN A population based observational study.
SETTING Population of 151 000 served by 82 general practitioners in west London.
PATIENTS New cases of heart failure were identified by daily surveillance of acute hospital admissions to the local district general hospital, and by general practitioner referral of all suspected new cases of heart failure to a rapid access clinic.
INTERVENTIONS All patients with suspected heart failure underwent clinical assessment, and chest radiography, ECG, and echocardiogram were performed. A panel of three cardiologists reviewed all the data and determined whether the definition of heart failure had been met. Patients were subsequently managed by the general practitioner in consultation with the local cardiologist or admitting physician.
RESULTS There were 90 deaths (83 cardiovascular deaths) in the cohort of 220 patients with incident heart failure over a median follow up of 16 months. Survival was 81% at one month, 75% at three months, 70% at six months, 62% at 12 months, and 57% at 18 months. Lower systolic blood pressure, higher serum creatinine concentration, and greater extent of crackles on auscultation of the lungs were independently predictive of cardiovascular mortality (all p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS In patients with new heart failure, mortality is high in the first few weeks after diagnosis. Simple clinical features can identify a group of patients at especially high risk of death.
In the very first table of this article (TABLE 1) hospital admission. In such cases, the clinical

Table 1 Clinical features of the 220 incident cases of heart failure
Demographics, history, aetiology
Age (years) 76 (67 to 83) (range 29 to 95 years)
Sex 118 (54%) men
102 (46%) women
<snip>

Your "reconsideration" should begin NOW

[Beest]

Originally Posted by Adak

Australia has a two-tier system. Everyone has a basic NHS service account, but if you want very good health care, you better have your private insurance account, as well. It can get pretty ugly pretty fast, otherwise, for the important stuff.The medical care is OK, but the waiting periods are dreadfully long.

Seems to be a little known fact that the UK has plenty of private health insurance. BUPA was the one you would hear about when i was a kid, so I looked them up, founded in 1947, based off an Australian organistaion founded in the '30's. If you have insurance you may well be seen in the same hospital and seen by the same doctors, but ,maybe nicer rooms, better food, shorter wait times etc.
You can be drop in and out of the private stream too, I have a friend whose mother was in pain, so he went private to see a specialist ina couple of days, instead of a couple of weeks or months, and the she was transferred back to the NHS system for treatment.

I also know of someone in the US with severe back pain that was required to take strong anti pain meds, the type for short term relief, that you should only take for a couple of days, for 2 months before her insuramnce would pay for an MRI. (a nurse BTW)

Having had some experience of both systems, the qualiy of the doctorin' is the same in both, beurocracy is equally obscure .
Wait times are longer in the UK for a simple surgery, and the hospitals aren't as new and shiny, but then nobody goes broke or goes without.