For those who said forcing Americans to buy private insurance was Unconstitutional...

[Quantum Windbag]

I hate to ask, but since I know you are pretty knowledgeable in this area... gotta link to that?

I would hope that by now it's common knowledge that the GOP budget slashes funding for Medicaid and Medicare. Where does more than half of the money supporting public hospitals come from? See pages 15-16 of the NAPH member survey for the answer.

It should also be common knowledge that Obamacare also slashes spending for both of those programs while expanding the eligibility for Medicaid. The only reason any of that money actually goes to public hospitals is that those hospitals treat patients that receive money from those programs. Since both Obamacare and Ryancare both propose equal spending cuts, which program is actually trying to eliminate county hospitals?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Requiring them to have insurance to cover routine medical expenditures is like requiring people to have insurance that covers oil changes in cars if they want to drive.

And, what do you suppose would happen to the price of oil changes if that policy were implemented? (btw, you just know that it would be accompanied by a law making it illegal to change your own oil )

 

[Immanuel]

Reading comprehension still a weak point?

They had access to health care, they even had insurance. They were on Medicaid in Arizona. If they wanted a transplant they could have paid for it out of their own pocket, tried to find supplemental insurance that would pay for it, or asked for contributions from the public. They were not denied health care, their insurance refused to pay for a costly procedure that would have delivered negligible returns.

Please note, that does not mean I support the Arizona decision, I just understand the difference between health care and insurance. Come back when you also understand it.

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

How does the Number of transplants done a year tell you anything about how cost effective they are? Many Transplant patients Still do not live very long after the operation. I think that may be where the whole Negligible returns idea came from.

It would be beneficial to look at survival rates after a transplant as opposed to the number of transplants.

It seems to me that Arizona's decision sucks. Especially for those who were on the transplant list one day and off the next. It also seems to me that we as a nation should help those among us who are in the most need and who can deny that someone needing a transplant or they will die is one of those who are in the most need.

But, if Arizona continued to fund transplant loans (and these were loans not medical payments from what I read) that most likely would never be repaid, who will suffer in their place?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The people in Arizona who were denied liver transplants because the state wouldn't pay for them.

To say everyone has access to healthcare is like saying everyone has access to a mansion and a Rolls Royce.

Reading comprehension still a weak point?

They had access to health care, they even had insurance. They were on Medicaid in Arizona. If they wanted a transplant they could have paid for it out of their own pocket, tried to find supplemental insurance that would pay for it, or asked for contributions from the public. They were not denied health care, their insurance refused to pay for a costly procedure that would have delivered negligible returns.

Please note, that does not mean I support the Arizona decision, I just understand the difference between health care and insurance. Come back when you also understand it.

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

That is not what I said. I will point out that giving liver transplants to chronic alcoholics brings a negligible return. You have to make that decision on a case by case basis.

Obamacare wants to take that decision away from the patients and doctors and put it in the hands of a panel that is only concerned with prices and per patient spending. How long do you think transplants will last under a system like that?

 

[rdean]

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

How does the Number of transplants done a year tell you anything about how cost effective they are? Many Transplant patients Still do not live very long after the operation. I think that may be where the whole Negligible returns idea came from.

It would be beneficial to look at survival rates after a transplant as opposed to the number of transplants.

It seems to me that Arizona's decision sucks. Especially for those who were on the transplant list one day and off the next. It also seems to me that we as a nation should help those among us who are in the most need and who can deny that someone needing a transplant or they will die is one of those who are in the most need.

But, if Arizona continued to fund transplant loans (and these were loans not medical payments from what I read) that most likely would never be repaid, who will suffer in their place?

Immie

So Republicans are advocating "death"? As in "death panels"?

 

[Trajan]

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

How does the Number of transplants done a year tell you anything about how cost effective they are? Many Transplant patients Still do not live very long after the operation. I think that may be where the whole Negligible returns idea came from.

It would be beneficial to look at survival rates after a transplant as opposed to the number of transplants.

It seems to me that Arizona's decision sucks. Especially for those who were on the transplant list one day and off the next. It also seems to me that we as a nation should help those among us who are in the most need and who can deny that someone needing a transplant or they will die is one of those who are in the most need.

But, if Arizona continued to fund transplant loans (and these were loans not medical payments from what I read) that most likely would never be repaid, who will suffer in their place?

Immie

the same kind of person who suffered when a NY authority made a decision to move up Mikey mantle on the transplant list despite the prognosis and his past history.

 

[Greenbeard]

It should also be common knowledge that Obamacare also slashes spending for both of those programs while expanding the eligibility for Medicaid.

Medicaid spending is going up under the ACA (remember how the law costs money? half of that is due to additional funding for Medicaid). Given that more than a third of the money funding public hospitals comes from Medicaid alone (i.e. it's the single largest source of revenue for them), the fact that the GOP budget calls for funding Medicaid at about half the level the ACA does (while doing nothing to address uncompensated care) is rather significant for safety net hospitals.

 

[Immanuel]

Reading comprehension still a weak point?

They had access to health care, they even had insurance. They were on Medicaid in Arizona. If they wanted a transplant they could have paid for it out of their own pocket, tried to find supplemental insurance that would pay for it, or asked for contributions from the public. They were not denied health care, their insurance refused to pay for a costly procedure that would have delivered negligible returns.

Please note, that does not mean I support the Arizona decision, I just understand the difference between health care and insurance. Come back when you also understand it.

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

That is not what I said. I will point out that giving liver transplants to chronic alcoholics brings a negligible return. You have to make that decision on a case by case basis.

Obamacare wants to take that decision away from the patients and doctors and put it in the hands of a panel that is only concerned with prices and per patient spending. How long do you think transplants will last under a system like that?

The only problem with your first paragraph is that this decision does not appear to be on a "case by case" basis. It seems Arizona had made the decision in regards to all transplant patients irrespective of probability of survival.

How does the Number of transplants done a year tell you anything about how cost effective they are? Many Transplant patients Still do not live very long after the operation. I think that may be where the whole Negligible returns idea came from.

It would be beneficial to look at survival rates after a transplant as opposed to the number of transplants.

It seems to me that Arizona's decision sucks. Especially for those who were on the transplant list one day and off the next. It also seems to me that we as a nation should help those among us who are in the most need and who can deny that someone needing a transplant or they will die is one of those who are in the most need.

But, if Arizona continued to fund transplant loans (and these were loans not medical payments from what I read) that most likely would never be repaid, who will suffer in their place?

Immie

So Republicans are advocating "death"? As in "death panels"?

And? Do you think I am defending Republicans? I have no idea of the political makeup of the committee, call it a panel if you want , that made this decision and quite frankly, I simply do not care. I find the idea of giving any bureaucrat control over my life and death decisions reprehensible irregardless of party affiliations.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ummm...what part of "you can if you want to" is forcing them?

Hmmm. Nothing. Looks like you fail.

If you don't buy it, you lose the entire amount you've paid into Medicare for your entire working life.

That's a bigger fine than the one in so-called Obamacare.

so you don't sppt. enactment of means testing and its results?

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It should also be common knowledge that Obamacare also slashes spending for both of those programs while expanding the eligibility for Medicaid.

Medicaid spending is going up under the ACA (remember how the law costs money? half of that is due to additional funding for Medicaid). Given that more than a third of the money funding public hospitals comes from Medicaid alone (i.e. it's the single largest source of revenue for them), the fact that the GOP budget calls for funding Medicaid at about half the level the ACA does (while doing nothing to address uncompensated care) is rather significant for safety net hospitals.

Medicaid does not fund hospitals, it pays hospitals to take care of Medicaid patients.

 

[dblack]

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

Hmm.. well, if the constitutionality is the issue you want to investigate, I'm not sure. There may be legitimate questions about the constitutionality of the Medicare program, but the bait-and-switch of converting Medicare benefits to insurance vouchers doesn't seem like a constitutional question. I do think it's bullshit, however, and just another corporate welfare proposal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

That is not what I said. I will point out that giving liver transplants to chronic alcoholics brings a negligible return. You have to make that decision on a case by case basis.

Obamacare wants to take that decision away from the patients and doctors and put it in the hands of a panel that is only concerned with prices and per patient spending. How long do you think transplants will last under a system like that?

The only problem with your first paragraph is that this decision does not appear to be on a "case by case" basis. It seems Arizona had made the decision in regards to all transplant patients irrespective of probability of survival.

I never said it was. I pointed out that I was not commenting on the Arizona decision in the first place.

I just responded to rdean trying to claim that transplants are beneficial simply because we do them. Quite often they occur because people have enough money to spend on them, regardless of the direct benefit they receive. Then we have transplants that occur simply to test the idea, like the face transplant that was recently paid for by the Army even though the guy that got it was not a vet.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Transplants deliver negligible returns? I didn't know.

Number of U.S. Transplants Per Year

That is not what I said. I will point out that giving liver transplants to chronic alcoholics brings a negligible return. You have to make that decision on a case by case basis.

Obamacare wants to take that decision away from the patients and doctors and put it in the hands of a panel that is only concerned with prices and per patient spending. How long do you think transplants will last under a system like that?

seemed to have survived this long with private Insurance doing exactly this.
Dont see you bitching about that.

I am not bitching about that because it is not the government doing it. That does not mean I do not have problems with it. If you do not understand the difference the government and a private business I do not even know why you are attempting to have this discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't buy it, you lose the entire amount you've paid into Medicare for your entire working life.

That's a bigger fine than the one in so-called Obamacare.

so you don't sppt. enactment of means testing and its results?

The topic of this thread is the constitutionality of Ryancare. Specifically, the question of the constitutionality of Ryancare is addressed to those who believe that government imposed mandatory purchasing of private healthcare insurance, under threat of financial penalty for failure to do so, is unconstitutional.

If that is the topic it failed from the start.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you get healthcare to all it the real question.

That's "the real question" only for boot licking toadies and professional moochers. Providing health care is not a legitimate government function.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Medicaid spending is going up under the ACA (remember how the law costs money? half of that is due to additional funding for Medicaid). Given that more than a third of the money funding public hospitals comes from Medicaid alone (i.e. it's the single largest source of revenue for them), the fact that the GOP budget calls for funding Medicaid at about half the level the ACA does (while doing nothing to address uncompensated care) is rather significant for safety net hospitals.

Medicaid does not fund hospitals, it pays hospitals to take care of Medicaid patients.

well they do fund it, its just worded with the word payment.
Medicaid Eligible Hospitals

Eligible hospitals will qualify for incentive payments if they adopt, implement, upgrade or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology during the first participation year or successfully demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology in subsequent participation years.

Medicaid hospitals that qualify for EHR incentive payments may begin receiving incentive payments in any year from FY 2011 to FY 2016.
While the law defines a payment year in terms of a federal fiscal year (FY) beginning with FY 2011, a hospital does not have to begin receiving incentive payments in FY 2011.

https://www.cms.gov/EHRIncentivePrograms/35_Basics.asp

Yes, they pay hospitals to spend less on patients. That is still not funding hospitals, is it?

 

[Immanuel]

Here is a decent table of survival rates:

One Year Adjusted Graft Survival - 2009 OPTN/SRTR Annual Report, Transplant Data

Other tables can be found here:

2009 OPTN/SRTR Annual Report

One year on a liver transplant is nearly 80%.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

seemed to have survived this long with private Insurance doing exactly this.
Dont see you bitching about that.

I am not bitching about that because it is not the government doing it. That does not mean I do not have problems with it. If you do not understand the difference the government and a private business I do not even know why you are attempting to have this discussion.

i understand the difference, hell i can even respect not liking gov HC on ideological grounds, But to complain about government having panels? Dumb.

Why is it dumb? Especially when the people who support government health care claim the panels are only going to cut costs without denying access to health care?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

well they do fund it, its just worded with the word payment.
Medicaid Eligible Hospitals

Eligible hospitals will qualify for incentive payments if they adopt, implement, upgrade or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology during the first participation year or successfully demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology in subsequent participation years.

https://www.cms.gov/EHRIncentivePrograms/35_Basics.asp

Yes, they pay hospitals to spend less on patients. That is still not funding hospitals, is it?

Eligible hospitals will qualify for incentive payments if they adopt, implement, upgrade or demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology during the first participation year or successfully demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology in subsequent participation years.

Same link.....Or funding if they meet certain goals.

shrug like i said if we use your "terminology" you are correct,but if we understand the context we see that you are not.

The government intends to track patient spending for 90 days after the patient leaves the hospital, and ding said hospital based on spending they have no control over. You can call that funding if you want to, but that would be a very long stretch of the word.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i understand the difference, hell i can even respect not liking gov HC on ideological grounds, But to complain about government having panels? Dumb.

Why is it dumb? Especially when the people who support government health care claim the panels are only going to cut costs without denying access to health care?

They arent going to deny people healthcare. They would look at a case and see if X treatment would be good for the patient. They may suggest a different route.

Where as a private company just flat out denies you.

Under one you are still covered, the other will hang up the phone.

No they will not.

They will look at overall spending and determine if, on average, there is a benefit that outweighs the cost. If they decide it is not a plus more often than it is they will deny the use of that procedure in all cases. They will not have the means or the time to do a case by case analysis of every single spending request. If they tried they would backlog the system for years and delay treatment for everyone that is not politically connected.