Obama Care vs Republicans

Adak;876457 wrote:

You might go in for a flu shot, but your doctor is *Required* to ask about (and enter data about), your sex life.

McCaughey tells us that Obamacare is not a plan to make healthcare more accessible to every American; the real “aim [is] to turn doctors into government agents.” How? By “pressuring them financially to ask questions they consider inappropriate and unnecessary, and to violate their Hippocratic Oath to keep patients’ records confidential.”

This stuff is not true, though, fortunately. Doctors are trained to take a sexual history, as part of a thorough evaluation, even when you're just complaining of foot pain. Few disease processes happen in isolation in the body. It's all part of the strange, late-stage Jenga tower that is human health, but when a doctor asks if you're sexually active, take it as a sign that you're being thoroughly cared for.

Obamacare does say that insurance must now pay physicians for preventive services, including things like STI counseling. This is meant to help patients not contract sexually-transmitted diseases, and save the whole system money down the line. It's cheaper and easier for everyone to just not get gonorrhea than to end up with a baby blinded by gonorrhea, or to require antibiotics and contribute to the advent of super gonorrhea.

Preventive services that physicians will be encouraged to offer go well beyond sexual counseling, too. Doctors will be encouraged to talk to you about depression, alcohol abuse, obesity, etc, before these things become a problem. These are practices based on evidence. Doctors aren't forced to offer these services, and they won't be penalized if they don't. Patients likewise don't have to answer questions they don't want to. But the financial incentives will encourage doctors to actually do the things that our best evidence says is the best approach for both the individual patient and the system.

Finally, nothing in the law mandates that the answers to your questions be sent anywhere public. Oppositely, it must remain in a confidential medical record, to be viewed only by healthcare professionals who care for you, under penalty of law, as always.

There are federal EHR requirements. But those are part of the HITECH Act (which was part of ARRA), not Obamacare. What Obamacare introduces is that insurance must now reimburse physicians for preventive services. These include things like STI counseling (which is why more docs may ask about sex). They also include lots of other stuff, especially for women and children. I’m fine with this, because these things work. They have evidence behind them. That’s why they’re in there. For years, we’ve paid for tons of things that don’t work, while not paying for things that do. This tries to right that balance.

But, hey, if you don’t do those things as a doctor, you won’t be “penalized”. You won’t get paid for them, and your patients might suffer, but no Obamacare thugs will come to get you. Moreover, there’s nothing in the law that mandates that the answers to your questions be sent anywhere or to the government. They’re part of your medical record, as they always have been, and they’re protected by the same laws that have always protected your data.

There are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare. It amazes me how opponents of the law keep needing to invent ones that aren’t accurate in order to rail against it.

There are legitimate reasons to dislike Obamacare. It amazes me how opponents of the law keep needing to invent ones that aren’t accurate in order to rail against it.

Adak;876507 wrote:

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?

--snip

Adak;876511 wrote:

Are you a political opponent of the party in power? A businessman who supports Conservative causes? Trying to win custody of your kids in an upcoming court case?

A few inappropriate photo's of Anthony Weiner in his underwear were enough to derail a senator's career. Sexual content in your medical record, and your medical record required to be stored according to federal regs, can be big trouble.

Hopefully, there will be enough on the plus side, to make it worthwhile. Right now, I'm seeing the downside of it.

After all the recent shenanigans by the Demo's, I'm not confident they can pull this one off, with a show of smart laws, and strong integrity.

...If the Democrats can use the IRS to fight against their political enemies...

Adak;876507 wrote:

I haven't heard anyone say that we'll have the option of declining to answer, yet. Perhaps it will be like the Census takers, when they ask you what race you are. They won't arrest you if you don't answer (I believe it's inappropriate to ask), but they do insist you answer, and I've never seen them leave without an answer.

Undertoad;876599 wrote:

Those 58%, do they think they will be asked sex questions which will be revealed by the national news?

Did they read the entire bill, or something? Cos everything rolled out so far are the popular parts.

Undertoad;876607 wrote:

Those 58%, they are against O'care for privacy reasons?

Adak;876608 wrote:

It can't *POSSIBLY* be about policy - Oh No! Their socialist policies couldn't possibly be wrong. :rolleyes:

orthodoc;876610 wrote:

Adak, if you're in favor of a nationalized health service, YOU are a socialist in the eyes of your political cronies. And please spare me (us) your hypocrisy about Democrats not being able to live within the current debt limit. Revisit the history of the GOP over the past couple of decades and then retire quietly to the corner.

We need a) the government to continue to function; b) universal health care with private health care available alongside; c) lots of other political goals that aren't pertinent to this thread.

Show me how the Democrats have compromised, lately!

*No pilot made to determine the REAL impact of Obama Care

*No period of study of the regulations (now at 10,000+ pages),
before the bill was passed. It was "Vote for it now, and we'll write up the regulations for it later".

Eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing cross state competition
among health care providers, and passing the 85% efficiency rule,
along with Tort reform, would have been something both parties could have agreed to.

"orthodoc" wrote:

Adak, please go and spend some time outside the US. Learn how people live on our planet when they aren't in that 1%. Or just spend some time in rural America, that would also do. You might learn that people have more pressing things on their minds than whether they should be offended that their doctor asks if they're sexually active.

Distance from Anchorage to Adak
Distance is 1926 kilometers or 1197 miles or 1040 nautical miles
The distance is the theoretical air distance (great circle distance). Flying between the two locations' airports can be a different distance, depending on airport location and actual route chosen.

Lamplighter;876635 wrote:

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours (i.e., how the Republicans have compromised, lately) :rolleyes:

If not "pilot programs" of some kind, prior to passage of the ACA...
...what do you consider the Massachusetts' program under Romney?
...what do you consider the Oregon program under Kitzhabber ?
...there were probably several trial projects in other states earlier under
federally approved variations of their own Medicare/Medicaid programs.

Of course I've not yet seen an opponent of Obama that didn't consider every situation "not the right way to do it" or "not the right time to do it". Those are standard bullet points for the GOP.

Maybe we can agree that the regulations were probably not "read" by
every Congressman, but the overall plan was discussed for a long time, with central features being made aware to everyone.
(You've listed a few in the paragraph below...)

The regulations for Obama Care weren't even mostly WRITTEN when the vote was made. They were passing a law that was totally incomplete.

[quote]
Pre-existing conditions and allowing cross state competition - obvious improvements.

The 85% rule is simply one tool to force the insurance companies
and the health care providers to put their $ into delivery of care,
not advertising or CEO salaries or high MD payments or ultra-high cost hardware ?

I assume you are not opposed to all that; but if so, what are your reasons ?

Now your turn. Name spending cuts (not FUTURE spending cuts
that probably will never materialize, but ACTUAL NOW spending cuts),
that Obama and the Democrats have supported.

The $17 billion would be saved by ending or reducing 121 federal programs.

Mr. Obama listed some of them: a long-range radio navigation system that costs $35 million
but has been rendered obsolete by global positioning systems;
a literacy program that spends half its financing on overhead,
and will be absorbed by other Education Department efforts;
and the position of education attaché to UNESCO,
based in the United States Embassy in Paris.

“None of this will be easy,” he said.

That is certainly true for about half of the savings that administration officials say
will come from military programs. The savings proposals, outlined last month
by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates as part of a comprehensive reordering
of military spending priorities, drew howls of protest from supporters in Congress and the arms industry.

Among Mr. Gates’s targets are missile defense programs,
the Army’s costly Future Combat Systems, Navy shipbuilding,
the advanced F-22 fighter jet
and a state-of-the-art helicopter fleet for the president.

President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year,
winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress
to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

Mr. Obama made progress on several other programs that had eluded Mr. Bush’s ax, including a student mentoring program in the Education Department, which went from $47 million in 2009 to zero, and Labor Department work incentive grants, which went from $17 million to zero.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion
in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year.[/COLOR]
An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious
in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs.

Among the president’s victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program,
ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series
of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded
in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end.

Mr. Obama made progress on several other programs that had eluded Mr. Bush’s ax,
including a student mentoring program in the Education Department,
which went from $47 million in 2009 to zero, and Labor Department
work incentive grants, which went from $17 million to zero.

Mr. Obama asked Congress to slash $26 million in funding for the Delta Health Initiative,
arguing that the government ends up paying for equipment or facilities
that should be financed by customers of private health clinics.

Instead, Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi Republican and ranking member
of the Appropriations Committee, inserted an earmark that keeps the money flowing
and raises the level an additional $9 million. Mr. Cochran said in his budget request
that the money will help taxpayers by improving health services in
one of the nation’s most impoverished regions.

Lamplighter;876630 wrote:

Overheard today:

"My 6-year old is better at handling not getting her way than the Republicans"

How about every debt limit being raised since Obama came into office?

Now your turn. Name spending cuts
(not FUTURE spending cuts that probably will never materialize,
but ACTUAL NOW spending cuts),
that Obama and the Democrats have supported.

Adak;876457 wrote:

You might go in for a flu shot, but your doctor is *Required* to ask about (and enter data about), your sex life.

Adak;876457 wrote:

Interesting that the House has grown enough spine to tackle this problem. In the past, they've rolled over with meaningless gestures of non-support/non-funding for Obama Care, which they knew would never even get to a vote in the Senate.

richlevy;876695 wrote:

You mean that a minority of one chamber wants to blackmail the rest by holding the entire country hostage...

Adak;876457 wrote:

snip--

...previous warnings about Obama Care are moving from "Republican scare tactics" to reality, the act is moving slowly into the a more unfavorable rating with the public.

This will be a kicker:

You might go in for a flu shot, but your doctor is *Required* to ask about (and enter data about), your sex life.

Do you still remember when Privacy was something that actually existed? :rolleyes:

--snip

Happy Monkey;876461 wrote:

[SIZE=1][citation needed][/SIZE]

Undertoad;876462 wrote:

Nope

Undertoad;876463 wrote:

Nope

Undertoad;876607 wrote:

Those 58%, they are against O'care for privacy reasons?

richlevy;876695 wrote:

[QUOTE=Adak]You might go in for a flu shot, but your doctor is *Required* to ask about (and enter data about), your sex life.

Undertoad;876857 wrote:

Adak, good on you for your post #45. Biggie called you out and you responded in kind. Much respect for that.

Without some kind of change, everyone was rolling right into Medicare/Medicaid, which to me is nationalized enough. Half of all medicine is paid for by the feds pre-O'care. People feel unprotected, while hospitals, at least around here, are like mini-Taj Mahals. Someone's getting PAID all this time...

But the system clearly wasn't working, and something had to be done. If O'care isn't sustainable we will find out soon enough, and fixes will be applied. But I personally prefer the D's let's do something as opposed to the R's let's do nothing and by the way let's get rid of the something if it's tried.

glatt;876835 wrote:

??? Because the oil and gas companies are going to pay for everyone's health care? Or is it just some sort of sense of negotiating? Obama allows a pipeline and the republicans will allow healthcare.

You can't get rid of the pre-exisiting conditions exclusion without having universal health care. Otherwise, people will just wait until they get sick and then sign up. It simply doesn't work.

Adak;876903 wrote:

Because we can pay for things if we have more $$$. With more oil and gas, we (the nation), have a lot more $$$, and a lot less deficit. Norway largely funds it's socialized health care system, from it's North Sea oil wells.

Prices Set for New Health-Care Exchanges

[ATTACH]45485[/ATTACH]

U.S. officials for the first time disclosed insurance prices that will be offered
through new federally run health-care exchanges starting Oct. 1, showing that
young, healthy buyers likely will pay more than they do currently
while older, sicker consumers should get a break.

The plans, offered under the health-care overhaul to people who don't get insurance
through an employer or government program, in many cases provide broader coverage than current policies.

Across the country, the average premium for a 27-year-old nonsmoker,
regardless of gender, will start at $163 a month for the lowest-cost "bronze" plan;
$203 for the "silver" plan, which provides more benefits than bronze; and
$240 for the more-comprehensive "gold" plan.<snip>

The Affordable Care Act marks a fundamental shift in the way insurers price their products.
Carriers won't be allowed to charge higher premiums for consumers
who have medical histories suggesting they might be more expensive
to cover because they need more care. They will have to treat customers equally,
with limited variation in premiums based on buyers' ages or whether they smoke.
Insurers also will have to offer a more generous benefits package that includes
hospital care, preventive services, prescription drugs and maternity coverage.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]The administration has pointed to new federal subsidies that
many lower-income Americans will be able to use to help offset the cost of premiums.
The data released by the administration indicated that for younger single people,
the value of the subsidies would be generous for someone with an annual income
of up to about $25,000, though it could tail off after that.[/COLOR]

Adak;876902 wrote:

<snip>
Around here (California), many hospitals have gone broke and shut down. The law is that anyone showing up at the emergency entrance, must be treated, even if they're not citizens (you aren't allowed to even ask), or of course, can't pay and are uninsured.

We have lots of illegals (who can't pay), coming in for treatments. The hospitals financial losses are *staggering*. Many have closed if they are near the border with Mexico, or along the routes they travel through the county. Others have been converted to "Clinics" which do certain specialized treatments (Oncology, etc.), but have no Emergency room.<snip>

Cruz said after he finished reading the story that the book "has some applicability, as curious as it may sound, to the Obamcare debate," adding that Americans "did not like green eggs and ham, and they did not like Obamacare either."

WASHINGTON &#8212; Republican Senator Ted Cruz&#8217;s 21-hour, 19-minute verbal assault
on President Obama&#8217;s signature health care law ended Wednesday
when [COLOR="DarkRed"]the Senate voted 100-to-0 [/COLOR]to move to consider House legislation
that Democrats plan to use to keep the government open next week.

Obamacare has faults...

Happy Monkey;877088 wrote:

It's not single-payer.

Happy Monkey;877000 wrote:

So, Cruz read Green Eggs and Ham during his Fauxlibuster.


The moral of that story is that it turned out that green eggs and ham were delicious...

What REALLY happened was Senator Cruz said he wanted to tell a good night story to his kids,
and read from Dr. Suez, for a few minutes. Then he said goodnight and "Don't worry, Daddy will be home soon".
<snip>
It was a father reading a short bed time story, to his kids, when he couldn't be at home to do it personally.<snip>

Undertoad;876508 wrote:

My medical records already contain that, and worse than that. This is nothing less than conspiracy theory. Stop the bullshit, it's beneath you.

During 1921 and 1922, the Nazi Party grew significantly, partly through Hitler's oratorical skills, partly through the SA's appeal to unemployed young men, and partly because there was a backlash against socialist and liberal politics in Bavaria as Germany's economic problems deepened and the weakness of the Weimar regime became apparent.

Hussein became President of Iraq, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Prime Minister and General Secretary of the Regional Command of the Ba'ath Party in 1979, during a wave of anti-regime protests in Iraq led by the Shia community

Adak;877475 wrote:

What REALLY happened was Senator Cruz said he wanted to tell a good night story to his kids, and read from Dr. Suez, for a few minutes. Then he said goodnight and "Don't worry, Daddy will be home soon".

Cruz said after he finished reading the story that the book "has some applicability, as curious as it may sound, to the Obamcare debate," adding that Americans "did not like green eggs and ham, and they did not like Obamacare either."

Adak;877592 wrote:

It was a touching family moment.

tw;877593 wrote:

A politician was wasting everyone's time. Even Cruz could not define what his purpose was. It did not matter. He was promoting himself to the naive who ignored he was filibustering without purpose. He had no strategic objective. And still some foolishly praised him for wasting time reading about green eggs.

Eventually even he voted to do what he said he was trying to stop.

Even the Geico Gecko speaks with a purpose.

Adak wrote:

If you saw Cruz reading Dr. Seuss to his kids, all the way through, you would have to agree

Adak;877475 wrote:

What REALLY happened was Senator Cruz said he wanted to tell a good night story to his kids, and read from Dr. Suez, for a few minutes. Then he said goodnight and "Don't worry, Daddy will be home soon".

If it had been Obama, it would have been a touching family scene, perhaps done with a split screen. One screen showing Cruz reading the bed time story, and the other showing the kids listening at home.

But Cruz is a conservative, so instantly this really touching few minutes, were reported by most media, as something crazy or very silly. It was neither. It was a father reading a short bed time story, to his kids, when he couldn't be at home to do it personally.

That's one of the big problems for the Republican party. They have plans to fix our health care system, and a lot of other plans as well, but no one is getting it out to the media. And when they do, it gets minimum, or slanted coverage.

As long as the media treats everyone who disagrees with Obama's policies as a racist, there's no basis for honest reporting. It's all reporting "stories that fit into our framework or theme", as the New York Times editor brazenly put it. When you have a propaganda campaign instead of honest reporting, it's a wonder you have anyone willing to stand up against it. That was the entire purpose of Cruz's over-night, speech. (It wasn't a filibuster, since it did not delay or stop the vote on any bill.)

So I salute Sen. Cruz for a bold stand, along with Senators Lee, Rubio, Rand, and all the rest. It wasn't always pretty, but he did get some media attention for the fact that many Americans are against Obama Care, as it's currently being implemented, and many are concerned about the repeating increases in our debt, caused by the excessive spending of Obama and Congress.

While fighting to stop ObamaCare may be the most popular cause among Conservatives, it would be more productive to force *some* cuts in spending, in return for raising the debt ceiling.

Getting something is a lot better than nothing, and as political leaders, they have to learn that compromise is the name of the game, ultimately. This is politics, not a gun fight at the OK Corral.

tw;877593 wrote:

A politician was wasting everyone's time. Even Cruz could not define what his purpose was. It did not matter. He was promoting himself to the naive who ignored he was filibustering without purpose. He had no strategic objective. And still some foolishly praised him for wasting time reading about green eggs.

Eventually even he voted to do what he said he was trying to stop.

Even the Geico Gecko speaks with a purpose.

Adak;877594 wrote:

<snip>
Good, you listen to animated commercials - well, we all have to start somewhere.

The exchanges were intended for uninsured people who
couldn't get health insurance through their employer or qualify for Medicaid.
Those who had access to health benefits meeting minimum coverage levels
could still purchase insurance on the exchanges
— but without a subsidy and using after-tax income.

Holding members of Congress and their staffs to that standard would have
the effect of stripping them of the employer-paid health coverage they currently get,
which is the same as any other federal employee.
So the Office of Personnel Management issued a proposed rule in August
making clear that [COLOR="DarkRed"]the government would continue to pay the employer contribution[/COLOR]
for congressional health benefits at the same rate as if members were still on the federal plan.

[QUOTE]
Congress isn’t “exempt” from the law.
It wasn’t exempt back in 2010, when we first debunked such a claim;
nor were lawmakers exempt in May when the bogus bit surfaced again.
Three months later, they’re still not exempt.
In fact, as we’ve said before, lawmakers and their staffs
face additional requirements that other Americans don’t.

And the “special subsidy” to which Pittenger refers [COLOR="DarkRed"]is simply
a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government,
has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.[/COLOR]

xoxoxoBruce;877609 wrote:

He had a purpose, he raised $1.5 million for his campaign chest with that stunt.

Clodfobble;877600 wrote:

Just so we're clear, Senator Cruz was in Washington, and his kids live in his home state of Texas. When Congress is in session, he sees them very little, like all Congressmen. He was not missing any extra time with his kids because of this particular stunt.

And the &#8220;special subsidy&#8221; to which Pittenger refers is simply
a premium contribution that his employer, the federal government,
has long made to the health insurance policies of its workers.

infinite monkey;877603 wrote:

Dr Suez. :lol2:

What a man, what a plan, what a canal! :lol: I'm so touched by Cruz the Suess. *wipes away tear*

Adak;877693 wrote:

My family wasn't one for bedtime stories - ever.

Adak;877693 wrote:

Sorry, but I didn't hear about Dr. Suess growing up. My family wasn't one for bedtime stories - ever.

Adak;877691 wrote:

Wrong again!

Like most Congressmen, he keeps in touch with his family during the time they're in Washington, by using things like Skype, and the telephone, etc.

That includes reading bedtime stories, to his two sons. Man, you guys are a cynical bunch.

Adak;877692 wrote:

And Lamplighter, do you ACTUALLY believe that most employers
will be continuing to pay into a medical insurance plan, that isn't required, for their employees?
<snip>
Because I can assure you, if they're not forced to, most businesses will not be
just throwing money into some expense that they don't have to.

Adak;877692 wrote:

And Lamplighter, do you ACTUALLY believe that most employers will be continuing to pay into a medical insurance plan, that isn't required, for their employees?

Adak;877691 wrote:

Wrong again!

Like most Congressmen, he keeps in touch with his family during the time they're in Washington, by using things like Skype, and the telephone, etc.

That includes reading bedtime stories, to his two sons. Man, you guys are a cynical bunch.

infinite monkey;877718 wrote:

Wrong again!


Cruz has two daughters.

Lamplighter;877728 wrote:

Yes, I do.

Employers with an annual employee levels of less than 30 FTE (full time equivalents)
remain exempt from Obamacare, and larger businesses (50 FTE) are required to provide health insurance.

Even if some employers change their benefits, it will be a relatively small
part of the economy, and will eventually sort itself out over the years.

But to your point...

The economics of employee benefits does not change just because of Obamacare.
Employers can spend $ on wages or on employee benefits, such as health care... their choice.
But tax benefits to the employer of the costs of health insurance are 35%

So, employers can balance spending 100% more in a salary raise,
against only 65% more in an increase in benefits to the employee... their choice.

That is not even considering the more "emotional" side of maintaining
employer/employee relationships, including such impacts on the business
as employee turn-over, employee illness/absense, positive employee motivations towards the business, etc.

infinite monkey;877746 wrote:

I reposted because my post got orphaned and it would be a damn shame if Adak didn't see how unfactual his facts are: even to the widdle childwen we are supposed to get all sentimental about.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.


And a couple favorites:

Where liberty dwells, there is my country.

God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.

glatt;878037 wrote:

Thanks to the shutdown, the NIH stopped accepting new patients this week in their new drug trials, including children with cancer.

Good job, tea party.

Adak;878054 wrote:

Oh Yes! Glatt, what are you thinking here? That's why Obama decided to close the White House for tours to the public, earlier.

That's why the National Parks and monuments are shut down, now.

That why the National Zoo shut off the live cam on the Panda cubs. How much money does it take to keep a live cam turned on? Nothing.

The Democrats idea here is to make you suffer. If they just make you discomforted enough, you will give up a bit more of your liberty, to the Feds. And they don't have to listen to you bitching about it, anymore - because they can make you suffer whenever they want to.

If those pesky Republicans will just get cowed down, life could be SO MUCH easier.

A representative gov't, a gov't that has to respect our stated liberties in the documents that gave our country birth. Who needs that?:rolleyes:

The House has tried several times to meet with the Senate and find a compromise to their differences.

Harry Reed (Senate Majority Leader), flatly refuses to any such meeting, and has advised the President to avoid attending such a meeting, as well.

They have to make us suffer, they have to beat down the Republicans, or they can't take away our liberties.

DanaC;878060 wrote:

'tealiban' Ha! Haven't come across that one before.

Welcome to the Cellar, Jesus!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/kkk-rally-canceled_n_4024192.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

A Ku Klux Klan rally planned for Saturday, Oct. 5 has been canceled because of the government shutdown.

On Sept. 26, officials at Gettysburg National Military Park granted a special-use permit for a rally to a Maryland-based KKK group. According to NBC 10 Philadelphia, the event was canceled when park officials rescinded all permits for special events because of the shutdown, which began 12 a.m. ET on Tuesday.

“Tourists will find every one of America's national parks and monuments, from Yosemite to the Smithsonian to the Statue of Liberty, immediately closed,” Obama said in a statement Tuesday. “And of course the communities and small business that rely on these national treasures for their livelihoods will be out of customers and out of luck.”

But not everyone took the closing of national parks and monuments sitting down. A group of World War II veterans visiting the National Mall on Tuesday stormed the WWII Memorial -- which is now technically closed to the public -- to pay their respects.

Section 4 of the Reconstruction Era 14th amendment holds that
&#8220;[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law &#8230; shall not be questioned

<snip>A harsh reality began setting into Capitol Hill &#8230;

The U.S. government may not reopen until the two parties reach a deal to raise the national debt ceiling. &#8230;
[COLOR="DarkRed"][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 &#8212; and potentially intractable.
[/COLOR]
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 &#8230;
Within the next few days, if House Republicans don&#8217;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.

&#8220;If the House GOP won&#8217;t back the Senate&#8217;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.
&#8230; A White House official said Tuesday night that the president could get behind Reid&#8217;s strategy.

&#8230; 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.&#8221;<snip>

Lamplighter;878087 wrote:

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? &#8212; 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.

Jesus;878059 wrote:

You actually have that the wrong way round. The Dems have reached out 16/17 times to go to conference in the past 6 months over the budget. Each time the tealiban wing of the party refused to allow any negotiation because it's all or nothing with them, and each fight is yet another conservative purity test.

Not really sure how you can accuse the dems of wanting to take your liberties. Remind me again which president introduced the patriot act?

I'm not sure whether you actually believe this nonsense or whether you're just entrenched in your political idealogies, and spend too much time in front of Faux noise.

Jesus;878091 wrote:

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;878126 wrote:

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),

Adak;878126 wrote:

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.

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?

Lamplighter;878151 wrote:

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 )

Adak;878170 wrote:

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).

[LIST]
[*]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.
[/LIST]

Adak;878170 wrote:

<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>

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&#8201;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&#8201;<&#8201;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 ([COLOR="DarkRed"]67 to 83[/COLOR]) (range 29 to 95 years)
Sex 118 (54%) men
102 (46%) women
<snip>

DanaC;878260 wrote:

Our politicians are trying to make our health service more like yours. Why, I do not know.

DanaC;878248 wrote:

Our health service ain't perfect. But ya know what? We really don't have many people declared bankrupt because they had an accident and ended up with bills of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

We also don't have people with chronic conditions unable to access any medical care until it turns into an emergency and they end up in the ER.

We don't have death panels.

We do have a degree of rationing involved. That basically means that new drugs have to prove themselves as effective and cost effective.

You also have rationing. The difference is that yours is based on what your insurance is willing to cover.

And don't believe the newspapers. They have agendas.


[eta] Also, you don't even need to read a newspaper or watch the news to know how truly fucked up the current US healthcare system is. Just look in the Cellar. We have members here who have been sick and unable to get the right care. We have a member whose son was involved in a terrible car accident and left with serious health problems: his father had to give up work to look after him, which left him without health insurance. We have another member who only last month was unable to get the anti-depressant meds she needed because she had lost her job. Meds that should be withdrawn from slowly which she had to go cold turkey from. Why? because she no longer had health insurance and wasn't eligible for medicare (medicaid?) and couldn;t afford the $400 per month needed for those tablets.

Over here, she'd have to pay £7.75 for a prescription and they'd most likely give her three months supply for that. Or she could buy 3 months or a 1 year cover for all prescription charges.

I have two chronic health conditions requiring regular medication. It costs me nothing to see my doctor and my prescriptions are covered by a three month pre-pay certificate (£27.50). Regardless of what I need. I could need hundreds of pounds worth of medication and it will only ever cost me a prescription charge.

My Dad died in his 70s. The last 10 years of his life he was in and out of hospital. Sometimes staying in for a week or more at a time. They did everything they could for him. It didn't cost him a single penny: free prescriptions over the age of 65 and nobody is charged for staying in hospital - unless they choose to go private.

Your health system is probably better at some stuff than ours. But it is only available for those who can afford it. For the millions of Americans who have no health insurance, or whose insurance only covers basic care the system does not work.

Adak;878194 wrote:

Those are cheap (relatively) diagnostics, NOT heart transplants!

"patients were subsequently managed by general practitioners,
in consultation with cardiologists or the admitting physician".

Do you know what that means? That means your heart attack care will be handled by a GP,
and probably, by an Internist - not even a Cardiologist. (Internists are more common).

They did however, find not one, not two, but three ways to successfully predict
which one's would die earlier, and approximately when they would die.

Oh! That's FABULOUS medical care, right there! :( :rolleyes: :(

Just a decade ago, people 65 and older were routinely
rejected for heart transplants at all but a few institutions.
But in 2006, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation
issued new guidelines saying that [COLOR="DarkRed"]heart failure patients
should be considered for transplants up to age 70[/COLOR].
[Also see note below]

In 2006, 243 patients age 65 and older in the United States received new hearts;
last year, that number was 332, according to data from the national
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
(Data strictly on patients 70 and older is not available, according to the network.)
<snip>

Donated organs are a precious resource.
Their sharing is conducted under rules drawn up by the appropriate UK Transplant advisory committee,
ensuring that each organ is given to the most suitable recipient and that each patient, as far as possible,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]is provided with equal access to available organs[/COLOR].

Patients are placed on the transplant waiting list by their [COLOR="DarkRed"]local consultant physician or surgeon
in accordance with nationally agreed criteria[/COLOR].
Their names are then notified to UK Transplant for inclusion on the national transplant database.

Individual social and psychological needs are also considered during the clinical decision-making process.
Applying a moral argument to the allocation of an organ for transplant
or any medical treatment is not compatible with the ethos of the NHS.
The health service does not stand in judgement over the people it is being asked to care for.

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.

Adak;878170 wrote:

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.

Adak;878544 wrote:

I doubt that's true. We see a lot of Canadians coming down to the US to get a by-pass, etc.,<snip>I was reading about some people who had lost an extreme amount of weight.<snip>I hear (also on the BBC), about people having to use pliers to pull out their bad teeth, because they can't get scheduled with a dentist.

Adak;876633 wrote:

Show me how the Democrats have compromised, lately! <snip>

<snip>Reid said Boehner could not deliver on a deal the two agreed to
after the August recess to fund the government because conservatives in his party
have pressured him to combine the delay or defunding of ObamaCare with government funding.

Reid was echoing similar comments he made earlier in the day.
He said leaders [COLOR="DarkRed"]had already compromised on a deal to keep sequester-level funding
of $988 billion a year as the baseline for the continuing resolution.[/COLOR]<snip>

Democrats have preferred a continuing resolution about
$70 billion higher than the current spending bill being debated.
“That is why we agreed to that lower number,” Reid said.
“[COLOR="DarkRed"]That is one of the largest compromises since I’ve been in Congress.
That is a big deal, $70 billion just like that.[/COLOR] And he couldn’t deliver.”

Adak;878575 wrote:

That's vapor money that was never approved for spending, by anybody.
So there is no savings - actual savings - in that proposal.

In 2013 specifically, sequestration refers to a section of the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (BCA) that was initially set to begin on January 1, 2013,
as an austerity fiscal policy.

The [COLOR="DarkRed"]reductions in spending authority are approximately $85.4 billion
[/COLOR] (versus $42 billion in actual cash outlays[note 2])
during fiscal year 2013,[2](p14) with similar cuts
for years 2014 through 2021.

Adak;878575 wrote:

With record deficit spending, the Republicans OF COURSE, wouldn't go along with another 70 Billion increase in spending by the feds.

tw;878677 wrote:

Amazing how facts get ignored. We were well on the way to solving our debts when those Republicans took power. They ran up debts. Even invented a war that cost us $trillions. We are still discovering and paying for the last $1trillion created by Mission Accomplished.

What did Republicans want to do? Reduce spending by $1trillion over ten years. They forget that they joyfully massacred 5000 American servicemen in a war that had no purpose. And that costs somewhere between $2 and $3 trillion. Cut $1trillion in ten years because they spent two or three trillion in Mission Accomplished?

What happened to the government surplus? It was spent on tax cuts and welfare to the rich. And other programs that eventually created a massive 2007 recession. But somehow all that get forgotten to blame Obama.

Adak;878786 wrote:

There was no doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was going to attack a nearby country. You don't keep an Army that large, hanging around, just training do you?

The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be. We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it, and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

Undertoad;878919 wrote:

It's just RINO, there is no H.

Adak;879106 wrote:

<snip>
Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes
of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, ...<snip>

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly and still popularly known as
the Food Stamp program, provides financial assistance for purchasing food
to low- and no-income people living in the U.S.<snip>

According to Keynesian economic theory, like other forms of government spending,[COLOR="DarkRed"]
SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy. [/COLOR]
In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com,
provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that [COLOR="DarkRed"]
a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[/COLOR][39]

In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[/COLOR][40]

Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that [COLOR="DarkRed"]
"Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered
an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments)
of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus [/COLOR]for every dollar spent.[41]
>snip>

Griff;878915 wrote:

Why do you continue to send Tea-Baggers to Washington when its conservatives you need? What we really need are fiscal realists who know the price of instability and will work across the aisle with other serious people. The more baggers you send to Washington the more comfortable the left gets sending their nutters.

BigV;879191 wrote:

Let me answer this.

I believe it is because the Republican party deciders decided that they'd be better off in the long run if they could have more people in Congress. In an effort to make that possible, they used their energies to redraw Congressional districts to make as sure as possible by gerrymandering the ever-loving-f*ck out of as many districts as they could control. To be fair, this is something to be desired by weak thinkers, or thinkers of weak ideas in both parties. But the Republicans have torn that shit UP!

Because ... as a result of... it's difficult to discern cause and effect here... regardless, now we have the case that many districts are NOT COMPETITIVE. If there's no competition for the election, there's no meaningful exchange of ideas. That "compromise" that Adak pines for so loudly is irrelevant, and therefore not present.

For people with closed minds, made up minds, weak minds, this is very comfortable. And those comfortable voters are like great big steamy piles of poo for the ... they're not poo. But they're intellectually dead, because they're not taking in new ideas. And they're attractive to the carrion feeders politicians who'll eat any free lunch. Campaign money (PAC, SuperPAC, corporate) also factors heavily in this equation.

Competitive districts favor more moderate candidates, ones who are more likely to listen to the ideas of the loyal opposition, indeed, ones who are more likely to have reasonable ideas to be heard by their equally moderate opponents. Think about all the talk you've heard about the fear of being "primaried" from those in Congress. They aren't fearful of losing a fight to an opponent of the other party (unless the "other party" is the Tea Party), they're worried that they're not "conservative" enough. I use "conservative" in "quotes" because these labels are becoming less useful.

These districts are RIDICULOUS.

Lamplighter;879143 wrote:

I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it. :rolleyes:

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:

Adak;879327 wrote:

<snip>
Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit,...

Adak;879327 wrote:

Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

On Monday night, John Stewart interviewed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,
and he kept pressing her on why the Obama administration put a one-year hold
on the health-care law’s mandate that employers provide insurance to their workers
without offering a similar delay to the requirement that individual Americans have health coverage.
“I would feel like you are favoring big business because they lobbied you,”
Stewart also said, “but you’re not allowing individuals that same courtesy.”

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The corporate mandate is mainly in place to prevent companies
that already offer insurance from taking away that coverage.[/COLOR]

Many health-care economists aren’t too worried about this.
That is, firstly, because employers have reasons to continue compensating
their workers with health-care coverage rather than, say, higher wages.
Firms, for example, get a [35%] tax break for offering insurance.

And, secondly, because even if they did take away coverage,
their workers would still be able to go into the marketplaces
the law set up and buy insurance on good terms and with government help.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Other than history, there’s no great reason employers are part
of the health-care system at all, and the law doesn’t need to keep them in it.<snip>[/COLOR]

Other than history, there’s no great reason employers are part
of the health-care system at all, and the law doesn’t need to keep them in it.<snip>

xoxoxoBruce;879591 wrote:

Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Lamplighter;879346 wrote:

Adak, once again you have diverted off to talking about "wealth", "goal", "taxes" etc.
That's either a debating tactic, denial, habit, O/C, or whatever ?

We started with Pelosi's comment about food stamps being a stimulus to the economy.

It's very simple...
When $ is spent on food in a local food store, it is income to the store.
When the store has income, it spends $ on employees, supplies, advertising, maintenance, and profit to the owners.
When people don't have $ to spend in the local food store, the store goes out of business.
That is the local economy.

When the government gives low income people $ 1.00, they spend it in the food store,
and it's employees and suppliers and advertising firms and contractors
and investors, each in turn spends portions of that $1 generating the $ 1.84 in the other expenditures.
That is the stimulus to both the (local and national)economy.

So, Pelosi was right... Right ?

Though Oregon's health insurance exchange is not yet up and running,
the number of uninsured is already dropping thanks to new fast-track enrollment for the Oregon Health Plan.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The low-income, Medicaid-funded program has already signed up 56,000 new people,
cutting the state's number of uninsured by 10 percent, according to Oregon Health Authority officials.
[/COLOR]
Since late September the Oregon Health Authority sent out notices to 260,000 people
already enrolled in the state's food stamps program since late October.
Under the new Oregon Health Plan income eligibility rules, in 2014 individuals
must earn 138 percent of the federal poverty level or less to qualify,
as compared to the 100 percent cutoff this year.
The new cap means monthly income of $1,322 for an individual,
$1,784 for a household of two, $2,247 for a household of three, and $2,704 for a family of four.

Many of the new enrollees are likely to have pent-up health needs.
A survey of 38,000 people on the Oregon Health Plan waiting list
in 2012 found 11 percent had diabetes, 8 percent heart problems,
30 percent high blood pressure, 22 percent high cholesterol and 5 percent cancer.

Beshear doesn't name names or call people out directly, but this is a brilliant implicit condemnation of the behavior of most of the Republican governors around the country.

The attitude they've taken is that since no Obamacare is better than even the best possible version of Obamacare, they should try to engineer the worst possible version of Obamacare in order to hasten its demise. As Chernyshevsky and Lenin said, "The worse, the better."

And that attitude, really, has always been one of the worst sins of political radicals of different stripes. A callous willingness to sacrifice concrete human interests in the here and now in pursuit of long-term ideological ends is a great way to make sure people end up worse off than they otherwise could be.

Beshear is trying to act like a proper public official and make things go well for people in Kentucky. Too many governors are hoping to make things go poorly and then point fingers.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]In Oregon, no one has signed up[/COLOR], in Alaska... 7.

Adak;879682 wrote:

Take it a step further and see where it leads: The gov't decides it's a stimulus to the economy, and we definitely need a stimulus, so they give everyone food stamps, and lots of them.

The problem is, there is no more wealth added to the economy to support it. So our dollar goes into free fall, as inflation flies through the roof.

He had the first of five heart attacks in 1978, when he was 37
and running in his first political campaign, for the Republican nomination
for Wyoming's sole seat in the House of Representatives.

Over the 35 years that followed, he has been saved from disability or death
through a series of medical advancements in treating heart disease that
often became widely available just at the time he needed them most.

He underwent quadruple bypass surgery in 1988 and, finally, the heart transplant in March 2012.

Lamplighter;881338 wrote:

Cheney is the topic of talking heads this week because he has "authored" a book about his heart.

henry quirk;881379 wrote:

Adak,

I imagine -- after a little time and whole lotta bucks -- the on-line portal(s) will run just fine.

More's the pity&#8230;

Upton (R-Mich.) criticized the contractors,
saying in September they "looked us in the eye and assured us
repeatedly that everything was on track, except that it wasn't" (Cohen, CNN, 10/24).

However, he added,
"This is more than a website problem.
The website should have been the easy part." Upton said,
"I'm also concerned about what happens next.
Will enrollment glitches become provider payment glitches?
Will patients show up at their doctor's office or hospital only
to be told that they aren't covered, or even in the system?

Adak;878786 wrote:

<snip>
The longer we wait to fix them, the worse the fixing will have to be.
We know that. Everybody knows that. But we can't get enough conservatives
in Washington, to get the fixing done! The Democrats won't touch it,
and the RHINO's won't either, but it needs to be FIXED!

*RHINO: Republican In Name Only.

A Texas hunting group is auctioning off a permit to shoot and kill
one of the most endangered animals in the world: a black rhino.

The Dallas Safari Club, an international organization of hunters and wildlife enthusiasts,
said they plan to auction off a permit to hunt an endangered black rhino from
the government of the Republic of Namibia.

But conservation groups said that the club's claim that the hunt
will actually benefit the species was based on faulty logic.

By removing these older males from the population,
you get an increase in the production of calves.
Younger males are able to impregnate the females that are
in that area so you get more offspring than from some of these older males."

infinite monkey;881905 wrote:

A sort of tangent/agreement to the 'charging more' claim above.

My teeth fiasco would have cost me about 3600 dollars, if'n I'd had dental insurance still. That would've cost me 1800 out of pocket, as it did before. With discounts for not having insurance it cost me ~2500. So it's true: they would charge more if I had insurance knowing insurance would pick up some costs.

Now how does that make sense?

infinite monkey;881907 wrote:

lamp AND NOW BIG V: as I'm studying medical coding I'm starting to see some of the incentives for healthcare providers to do things a certain way. It's really confusing to me right now, but I'm just getting through the first couple chapters/basics.

And the irony is: drumroll please...if I HAD the dental insurance I would still be employed. IF I were still employed I wouldn't have my PERS paid out. IF I didn't have my PERS paid out I wouldn't have been able to afford 1800 out of pocket and would've have been in debt again (like last time, and that almost killed me) but since I'm unemployed and I have the PERS I wrote a check.

Weird, is all

DanaC;881912 wrote:

Which is a s lightly different thing to demanding bang from her buck... ;p

Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, announced Monday that
[COLOR="DarkRed"]35,000 part-time employees will soon be moved to full-time status,
entitling them to the full health care benefits that were scheduled to be denied them
as a result of Wal-Mart’s efforts to avoid the requirements of Obamacare.[/COLOR]

While some analysts believe that the move comes as Wal-Mart is attempting to deal
with the negative view many Americans have of its worker benefits program,
a closer look reveals the real reason for the shift—

Wal-Mart’s business is going south due to the company’s penchant for putting politics
and the squeeze on Wal-Mart employees ahead of the kind of customer satisfaction
that produces prosperity over the long-term.<snip>

The result?
Empty shelves, ridiculously long check-out lines, helpless customers
wandering through the electronics section and general disorganization at Wal-Mart store locations.

This should possibly even go in the post whore thread,
because it's really not contributing to the discussion. But...

glatt;882043 wrote:

This whole health care topic is spread through about a dozen threads here. I don't know where to post.

This should possibly even go in the post whore thread, because it's really not contributing to the discussion. But...

It's open enrollment here at work. Today I got the breakdown of the 3 plans I can choose from: the good expensive plan, the crappy expensive plan, and a new high deductible plan that is slightly cheaper but it so crappy, it's almost like not being insured. It only kicks in after a $3000 deductible. But then you'll be glad you have it, because you are SICK.

Anyway, looking at the price tags on all these plans, it occurred to me that when you count my employer's premium contributions, and my premium contributions, and also consider that we recently refinanced our house for a lower payment, we are now spending about double for health insurance what we are spending for housing here in expensive Arlington VA.

We are healthy, and we(including my employer) are spending twice as much for health insurance as we are for housing. I think that's messed up.

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that don’t provide
the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year.[/COLOR]
So they’ve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people
who hold these substandard policies.

(At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the
10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)<snip>

[COLOR="DarkRed"]But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees.
They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law,[/COLOR]
and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies
that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.

Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the
soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high
as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that,
and some didn’t cover hospital care.

This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what
health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone
can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates
for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that
really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits
that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.<snip>

BigV;882890 wrote:

shit.

As of July 2013, a total of 5,677 Airbus A320 family aircraft
have been delivered, of which 5,481 are in service.
In addition, another 4,135 airliners are on firm order.
It ranked as the world's fastest-selling jet airliner family according to records from 2005 to 2007,
and as the best-selling single-generation aircraft programme.[9][10]

The A320 family has proved popular with airlines, specifically low-cost carriers (LCC).
British LCC EasyJet purchased A319s, and A320s, to replace its Boeing 737 fleet.
The family competes directly with the Boeing 737, 717, 757 and the McDonnell Douglas MD-80.

classicman;882877 wrote:

Gov Asshole - Corbett(R) chose not to expand Medicare.
I am not sure what SPECIFICALLY is the reason. The letter states very clearly that the policy is no longer in compliance with the UN-ACA regs, but not why.
Here is the letter my son received. We have not received any more feedback from them since. I called twice, but the wait times were ridiculous and I hung up.

Lamplighter;882897 wrote:

Why "Shit" ?

--snip

classicman;882837 wrote:

There is nothing to discuss with Obama and what he said dozens of times.
My insurance with BC is being terminated. My son's plan (no, not Dan) with Coventry (now part of Aetna) is also being discontinued. The alternative plans on the exchange are 2-3X the cost of what we had, we could afford and what fit OUR needs. We are basically being forced to go without insurance AND as an added kick in the nuts, I get to pay a penalty because of it. FUCK YOU OBAMA, I regret voting for him almost as much as Shrub.

The Kentucky Department of Insurance has fined Humana $65,430 because it offered policyholders an unapproved opportunity to amend their insurance as part of a letter that regulators have called “misleading.”

The department investigated letters sent in August to 6,543 individual plan policyholders in Kentucky. The letters said they needed to renew their plans for 2014 within 30 days or choose a more expensive option that complies with the Affordable Care Act.

But regulators last month called the letters misleading, arguing they did not make sufficiently clear that policyholders could compare and choose competing plans on the state’s health insurance exchanges, which open on Oct. 1, and for which they could be eligible for federal subsidies.

Lamplighter;882897 wrote:

Why "Shit" ?

The letter is clear that his policy continues thru the end of 2014
... and at that time an ACA-compatible policy will be available.

Lamplighter;882897 wrote:

Mr Whiner has returned...

Five or six years from now, Mr Whiner's son will turn 26, and no longer be on his parent's policy.
But even with "pre-existing condiotions" he can still have insurance due to ACA.
His son's income will be taken into account, and will probably
have very little, maybe zero, out-of-pocket premium payments.

Lamplighter;882897 wrote:

For some people, this is the Obamacare they see...

Words matter

BigV;882915 wrote:

they don't have a built in motivation to make the costs less, until they were compelled/cajoled into competing directly. competition has a long and well established track record of simultaneously allowing profits for effective companies and lowering prices for consumers where they have a choice.

xoxoxoBruce;882964 wrote:

Unless they collude to fix prices so the all get fat.
But they wouldn't do that, would they. :rolleyes:

they don't have a built in motivation to make the costs less

Lamplighter;883026 wrote:

<snip>Probably the only path to holding down health care costs is now thru Medicare/Medicaid limits,
and I hope the policies dictated within the Obamacare exchanges will eventually do that.

The anger over the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s federal health insurance exchange
&#8212; and over the conflicting explanations about whether people can keep their coverage &#8212;
has been bipartisan and well-deserved.<snip>

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The law has two overarching goals: Cover almost everyone, and slow the growth of medical care costs.[/COLOR]
The goals are equally important. Too little coverage, and premiums in the exchanges will be unaffordable;
too rapid a cost increase, and the federal government will not be able to afford the subsidies.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Since 2010, the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average in the prior 40 years.[/COLOR]
The first wave of the cost slowdown emerged just after the recession
and was attributed to the economic hangover. Three years later,
the economy is growing, and costs show no sign of rising. Something deeper is at work.

The Affordable Care Act is a key to the underlying change.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Starting in 2010, the ACA lowered the annual increases that Medicare
pays to hospitals, home health agencies and private insurance plans. [/COLOR]
Together, these account for 5 percent of the post-2010 cost slowdown.
Medicare payment changes always provoke fears &#8212; in this case,
that private plans would flee the program and that the quality of care in hospitals would suffer.
Neither of these fears has materialized, however.
Enrollment in private plans is up since the ACA changes.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care.[/COLOR]
In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided.
As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded.
The reaction to this change has been rapid:

Hospital readmissions, which used to bring in substantial dollars, are now penalized.
Unsurprisingly, the readmission rate in Medicare is down 10 percent since 2011.
Similarly, hospital-acquired infections used to bring in additional dollars, but now they do not.
One program to cut infections, encompassing only 333 hospitals, saved more than $9 billion.
Both of these changes improve patient health even as they reduce spending.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Cost savings induced by the ACA are particularly beneficial
because they could increase quality while they lower spending.[/COLOR]
The reduction in technology development means lower costs
but also fewer ways to treat sick people.
People with high deductibles use fewer valuable services as well as fewer less-valuable ones.
Only by eliminating unnecessary care can we ensure that everyone benefits from saving money in health care.

Governors and legislators in red states are almost universally opposed to the ACA.
But these states are still seeing cost savings from the law &#8212; and they are participating in other ways.

Clodfobble;883058 wrote:

That's not to say it doesn't happen, but at least now there is a *potential* element of competition in the healthcare marketplace.

This law was nothing more than an attack on one industry
while completely missing the other cost drivers which are Big Pharma,
Medical equipment manufacturers, hospitals and providers.

Eventually, hospitals and providers will come around,

Big Pharma is the result of GW Bush and Republican's

But Jones said that under the law, insurers have another year to do so."

The policies had been set to expire on Dec. 31
but will be extended until Feb. 28 for those who choose to re-enroll.
Notices informing customers of the extension will be sent out this week

The federal law requires policies to offer minimum levels of coverage, forcing companies to terminate many existing plans.

... maybe I heard it wrong.

<snip>
Already people who have plans that pre-date the Affordable Care Act
can keep those plans if they haven't changed. That was already in the law.
That's what's called a grandfather clause that was included in the law.
Today we're going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed
since the law too[k] effect and to people who bought plans since the law took effect.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]So state insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans
can and can't be sold in their states, but the bottom line is insurers can extend
current plans that would otherwise be cancelled into 2014. And Americans
whose plans have been cancelled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.

We're also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform
their customers about two things:
One, that protections -- what protections these renewed plans don't include.
Number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage
and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.
[/COLOR]
So if your received one of these letters I'd encourage you to take a look at the marketplace.
Even if the website isn't working as smoothly as it should be for everybody yet,
the plan comparison tool that lets you browse cost for new plans near you is working just fine.

Now, this fix won't solve every problem for every person, but it's going to help a lot of people.
Doing more will require work with Congress. And I've said from the beginning that
I'm willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to fix problems as they arise.
This is an example of what I was talking about. We can always make this law work better.

It is important to understand, though, that the old individual market was not working well.
And it's important that we don't pretend that somehow that's a place worth going back to.
Too often it works fine as long as you stay healthy. It doesn't work well when you're sick.
So year after year, Americans were routinely exposed to financial ruin or denied coverage
due to minor pre-existing conditions or dropped from coverage altogether even if
they've paid their premiums on time. That's one of the reasons we pursued this reform in the first place.

And that's why I will not accept proposals that are just another brazen attempt
to undermine or repeal the overall law and drag us back into a broken system.
We will continue to make the case, even to folks who choose to keep their own plans,
that they should shop around in the new marketplace because there's a good chance
that they'll be able to buy better insurance at lower cost.
<snip>

So state insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans
can and can't be sold in their states, but the bottom line is insurers can extend
current plans that would otherwise be cancelled into 2014. And Americans
whose plans have been cancelled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.

Mike Kreidler has served as insurance commissioner in Washington state since 2000.
Kreidler, an optometrist by training, also served one term in the House of Representatives
and 16 years in the state legislature.

On Thursday, Kreidler was the first insurance commissioner to reject President Obama's proposal
that would give insurers and extra year to sell plans that do not comply with the Affordable Care Act.
He said, in a statement, that he was acting "in the interest of keeping
the consumer protections we have enacted and ensuring that
we keep health insurance costs down for all consumers."

Kreidler and I spoke Friday morning about his decision,
why he thinks it will be difficult for any state to move forward on the Obama proposal
and how he learned of the president's plans.
What follows is a transcript of our discussion, lightly edited for clarity and length.

SK: Putting aside policy concerns for a moment, did you think it would be
logistically possible to allow these plans that were initially barred from the market back in?
MK: If that did happen, they'd have a key interest in wanting to re-rate their products.
They'd be trying to do that when people were already signing up.
That's true for any state, red or blue, they're going to be challenged
to implement this without having a significant impact.

It&#8217;s too late in the game, certainly for the state of Washington.
The health plans themselves have said that, as you've heard from AHIP
How do you have one set of rules for some plans and another for others?
It would have been very challenging.

Health carriers in our state were not excited about prospects of this.
And the last thing I wanted to see was the market destabilizing or seeing
significant rate increases impacting the number of people signing up for health insurance.
All of those things were going to be compromised. It&#8217;s brought about a lot of consternation.

I strongly support the Affordable Care Act. I know the president wants it to succeed.
And I'm supporting the president by making the Affordable Care Act work in the state of Washington.

SK: How many cancellation notices have Washingtonians received?
MK: There are about 290,000 people in the individual market, and
all of them were sent out discontinuation and replacement notices.
Those notices we don't have authority to regulate, but we did ask the carriers
if we could see them and in a number of cases made suggested changes to them as they went.

There are people out there who are not happy with the fact they received those notices.
Not infrequently the carrier has identified a replacement for them that costs more.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]What people don't realize in many cases, and we&#8217;ve worked diligently to fix this,
is they need to go look at other plans and what other companies are offering
to see if there's a better fit for them[/COLOR].
<snip>

Admit it, you never gave a damn about his several blatant lies in the past several years,...

...[Republican]Vance McAllister pulled off a startling upset Saturday night
in the special election for Congress in Louisiana's 5th District,...

The candidates disagreed on next-to-nothing.
Both were strongly pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Second Amendment, and opposed Obamacare.

The sole difference, as several published reports noted,
was that Riser supported outright repeal while McAllister said repeal
would not work until Republicans took the presidency and Senate
and instead supported fixing the healthcare measure.

A few observers speculated that this convinced some 5th District Democrats
(who had no horse in the run-off) to vote for McAllister over Riser.
<snip>

There is also a serious Doctor issue with the ACA, where the doc's have to have hospital affiliation
- which of course, many doc's in private practice don't have. If that becomes a problem,
then lots of doc's won't be seeing patients with ACA insurance.

Adak;883810 wrote:

They mentioned that in New Hampshire, 40% of the hospitals would not be available for those covered by Obamacare.

xoxoxoBruce;883820 wrote:

Nothing to do with the law, it's the insurance companies using this as an opportunity to squeeze the hospitals. There will be more of this and the solution is single payer.

A great many people think they are thinking when they are
merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James

Adak;883672 wrote:

It just seems like people are blaming Obama, because the web site for it, is the shits. Obama didn't create the web site!

The Republicans tried to tell everyone that there was a bad side to Obamacare - higher rates for one thing, and cancelled low cost policies for another - but nobody believed that.

Now under the new changes, I'll have to be insured for:

*mental health - in case I decide to go crazy. :p:
*maternity care - in case I decide to get pregnant. :eek:
*breast cancer screenings - some men do get breast cancer, but I don't know any men who get breast cancer screenings. :rolleyes:

--snip

Adak;883672 wrote:

Now under the new changes, I'll have to be insured for:

*mental health - in case I decide to go crazy. :p:
*maternity care - in case I decide to get pregnant. :eek:
*breast cancer screenings - some men do get breast cancer, but I don't know any men who get breast cancer screenings. :rolleyes:

In an era when political discourse is regularly laced with fact-free fulmination, it's tempting to just let it go.[COLOR="Red"] But we just can't pass up the baloney being spouted even in Congress about how unfair it is to require all insurance policies under the new health care law to cover maternity care -- even policies sold to, perish the thought, men.

It shows such colossal ignorance of how insurance works. (And possibly of how pregnancy occurs. [/COLOR] Here's a hint: It takes two to tango.)
This festering controversy burst into the spotlight a few weeks ago during testimony from Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, when Rep. Renee Ellmers -- yes, a woman -- of North Carolina asked her: "To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?"

Ellmers appeared to think she had nailed the secretary with airtight logic. Insurance industry executives must have cringed. :rolleyes:

In a functioning insurance marketplace, healthy people pay into the pool with the understanding that when they someday need care, they will get it. The greater the number buying policies covering a broad range of conditions, the lower the rates can be.

[COLOR="red"]So women pay for policies that happen to cover treatment for prostate cancer -- which, by the way, they don't even cause -- and [SIZE="4"]Viagra[/SIZE] for men.
And men, often known as "husbands" and "fathers," pay into the pool for maternity coverage, which would be unaffordable if only women of childbearing age paid premiums for it.[/COLOR]

The core of Ellmers' argument is: I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's care. That's an argument against insurance itself. Instead of paying premiums, everyone should just save up to pay for chemotherapy, blood pressure medicine and kidney transplants in case they're needed. [COLOR="red"]Of course the inability of nearly all Americans to do that is the reason the private insurance industry developed.[/COLOR]

Conservatives' choice of maternity care as an avenue to discredit health care reform is the latest volley in what some see as a GOP war on women. It makes no sense for a party posturing as pro-life: The inclusion of maternity care in the Affordable Care Act, as well as requirements to cover newborn and pediatric care, are the ultimate pro-life policies. They ensure care for moms and basic protections for children outside the womb, which should help reduce the rate of abortion. Kids who get medical care are more likely to succeed in school and grow up to be productive citizens rather than a drain on taxpayers.

Those who carp at maternity coverage in insurance policies show they understand neither the insurance market nor this basic fact: If mothers get the care they need to give birth to healthy children, every single American is better off.

Dads included.

It's like we never heard of running a small scale pilot program - what a concept!

Not to mention that mental health insurance was not mentioned
previously by the Democrats, as a requirement for ACA approved health insurance.

Health care
On February 5, 2007, Edwards unveiled his plan for universal health care.

The plan subsidizes health insurance purchases for poorer Americans,
requires that all Americans purchase health care,[24] "requires that everybody get preventive care,"[25]
and requires employers to offer health insurance through the Medicare system as one option for their workers.
Since Medicare has lower administrative costs &#8212; under 4%, versus 20% or more for many HMOs[26] <snip>
...Cost Containment
<snip>
...Revenue sources
<snip>
Individuals who are not covered by their employers or by an expanded
Medicaid program (covering individuals and families with incomes up
to 250% of the poverty level) or Medicare will be required to purchase insurance from these Health Markets.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Insurance companies must compete to win the right to be one of the providers
in these Health Markets and must provide full comprehensive care (including mental health parity).[/COLOR]
In addition, one of the insurance plans will be directly provided by the federal government
(similar to, but separate from Medicare).

Adak;884628 wrote:

But mental health?

richlevy;884647 wrote:

Basically, if our country wants to be the largest industrial nation in the world with easy access to firearms, then we should also have cheap or free access to mental health.

Undertoad;884657 wrote:

This line of reasoning is extremely offensive to the mental health community and its patients. You may want to apologize.

The automatic connection of mental illness with violence is unfair, unfounded and dangerously obscures the actual risks faced or posed by individuals.

Undertoad;884673 wrote:

A) She may kill a bunch of people.
B) She may affect** other people, such as richlevy.
C) It could have saved her life, which most of us would have given any amount to do, and is the right and humane approach for all of society.

Happy Monkey;884713 wrote:

C is the real answer, but you may have to use A and B because lots of people will see C as socialist and therefore evil.

Adak;884873 wrote:

So Obama decried the IRS targeting Tea Party and Conservative groups, leading up to his re-election.

Lamplighter, you don't believe for one minute that the Obama Press Corps (oops! NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN),
would broadcast the base behavior of their Glorious Leader, do you?

Adak, over and over and over wrote:

Because, BENGHAZI!!!!!11

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves
about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to
America&#8217;s health insurance system.

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said
-- many times -- of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep. So this fall, as cancellation
letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans,
the public realized Obama&#8217;s breezy assurances were wrong.
<snip><snip><snip>

'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. But we are raising the standards of health care coverage by private insurance companies. If your own health care company makes it's own business decision that they do not current meet these standards, or in the future they do not plan to meet these new standards, they will have to cancel your coverage. They will notify you that your current coverage will not be extended or offered after January 1, 2014. But they will send you a cancellation notice in time for you to either sign up for a new policy that does meet the new standards, or you can sign up for a new policy offered by other companies, or in some states that have expanded Medicare, you can sign up for coverage by the US government. On the other hand, if your health care insurance is through your employer, your employer may decide to change your coverage and that will be your employer's decision as a business decision for what is best for the company or corporation.

The lead bird does gain something from the V
- it's the same principle as the spoiler on the back of a car.

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans [in any given year, ever, regardless of Obamacare,] even if they liked them.