In Support of Obama's Health Care Law

[serenesam]

Can't wait to see when rich folks start having the same probability of dying as a poor person. Whahahahaha!

 

[old navy]

And that is why everyone deserves access to the best care possible.

I have no problem with that.

 

[MeBelle]

The PPACA was a bad piece of legislation that has has already had detrimental effects, and has not even been fully implemented. Health care costs have risen, physicians have started refusing Medicare patients, and corporations are dropping people from coverage. The health care delivered in this country is the best in the world. Hopefully it and the rest of the country will not be destroyed before January of 2013.

To add to the obvious, PPACA is front-loaded. Meaning that those who already purchase their own health care insurance, either on their own or through their employer (for all those that still have a job and if the employer is still able to offer it), will have tax increases on TOP of what they already pay.

This is not about health care, it is about health insurance.

Several things are needed in order for health insurance to reform on it's on.
1) Allow health insurance companies to sell across state lines. Competition is GOOD!
2) TORT reform. Lower malpractice equals unnecessary testing so Docs aren't always trying to CYA. Less testing equals lower costs.

A possible third option is for health insurance to revert BACK to what it was intended for to begin with, CATASTROPHIC injuries, and insurance companies were non-profit! Not to bring Jr to the ER because Jr has the sniffles, aka a cold, unless adults want to pay for the bill, in full, out of pocket.

A few examples:

Offering Medical Service, No Insurance Allowed - Connecticut Insurance

Doctors Who Don
This one also talks about concierge docs, who charge a flat fee of $1,800 a year! That fee includes routine tests etc. Basic stuff.
When was the last time anyone paid $1,800 a year for health insurance?

Of course there are critics. Who cares? Are the critics thinking outside the box? NO!

 

[MeBelle]

If Obama care is so great why is Congress exempt from it and why does the Govt give out so many waivers to so many groups of people?

Annual Limits Policy: Protecting Consumers, Maintaining Options, and Building a Bridge to 2014 | cciio.cms.gov

 

[Chris]

The French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

The French Lesson In Health Care

 

[Greenbeard]

If Obama care is so great why is Congress exempt from it

Congress isn't exempt. See Section 1312.

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are--

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).​

and why does the Govt give out so many waivers to so many groups of people?

Because many mini-med plans can't accommodate the annual limit requirements. Thus the wait for the exchanges to be operational.

 

[MeBelle]

Links please!

Including definitions.

 

[Greenbeard]

Pub. L. 111-148

CCIIO: Annual Limits

 

[logical4u]

I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just one statement.

And yes, this is in alignment with Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights:

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

That was tried in Europe. It is currently failing. If this country had stuck with the original Bill of Rights (and not tried to twist it to give the gov't more rights), our country would have continued to be the most prosperous in the world. If Roosevelt's is put in place, say goodbye to the country, and hello to "tribal" law.

 

[logical4u]

Get a job, ya stinkin' hippie!

Try directing that statement to these 5,000 phds that are janitors:

h t t p://gizmodo.com/5671062/there-are-5000-janitors-in-the-us-with-phds

Doesn't that pretty much demonstrate what a "liberal" education is worth?

 

[logical4u]

Put down the bong dude. You are responsible for everything that happens to you in life.

Yet the neuroscientist Sam Harris doesn't think so. Youtube search "Sam Harris Freewill."

Everything. Society doesn't owe you a fucking thing. You are never going to see a "2nd bill of rights" or anything like it.

Never? What's wrong with people being entitled to a job? Don't you want people to work?

"Entitled" implies they will not work, jut expect a paycheck. That is not how society improves. That is how society collapses, read history.

 

[logical4u]

However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just one statement.

That would be simpler but it wouldn't address the broken individual and small group health insurance markets faced by individuals and small businesses over 133% of the poverty line. It wouldn't give states the additional support they need as they expand their Medicaid programs, nor would it give them additional options within Medicaid for improving the quality of care and reining in costs. Indeed, it wouldn't have even paid for the additional federal share of the Medicaid expansion.

It wouldn't have instituted reforms to payment and service delivery in Medicare that are needed to put the program on a more sustainable long-term footing, nor would it have provided additional resources and authority to strengthen program integrity in public programs to step up the fight against fraud and abuse. It wouldn't have addressed workforce issues to start rectifying ongoing physician shortages.

The bill you're describing wouldn't have addressed health care itself--i.e. improving quality and tackling costs to move the system toward sustainability--and it would've left a significant chunk of the coverage picture unaddressed. The ACA did touch all of those areas, which is why it's not a one-sentence law.

The one that was put in place will not take the medical system toward "sustainability" (or the country either, for that matter). It is designed to destroy the middle class and divide the nation into the ruling elite, and the peasants.

 

[logical4u]

From chapter two of Peter Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptc Bomb,"

When the President rushed through Obamacare, he promised it would reduce the deficit, citing CBO’s scoring! Of course, he never revealed, as was done in the 2010 Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees and the 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government, that Obamacare policies will cut payments for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers by $15 trillion.


So...you think any of the above will continue to stick around?

Yes, the government will have no choice but to take care of its people. If they don't, there would be mass riots and crime. People will do what they have to do to survive.

Also there's a great book by Damon Vickers called "The Day After the Dollar Crashes"

Perhaps only a collapse is necessary for a brand new global economic and social system to occur. This is predicted from numerous people both on the Right and on the Left and all others from Ron Paul, Gerald Celente, Marc Faber, Zeitgeist experts, Peter Schiff, etc.

Were you at a state fair last Thursday?

 

[logical4u]

I am definitely a supporter of Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just one statement.

And yes, this is in alignment with Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights:

The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Have you read “Why Obamacare Is Wrong For America,” by Turner, Capretta, Miller and Moffit?

No?

How about the following:

1.Obamacare will collect more than $500 billion in new taxes and take $575 billion from Medicare over the next ten years.

a. Two new entitlements, plus a big Medicaid expansion, are created to reduce the number of uninsured, at a cost of at least $2.3 trillion- that’s TRILLION- over the first ten years of full implementation.

2. With each passing year new taxes will be imposed. As disclosed on the attached chart from the
California Hospital Association:

• 2011: A 2.5% excise tax is imposed on pharmaceuticals. (This is part of the plan to pay for the
reform law.) This cost – which will be in the billions of dollars - will be passed on to health care
providers, primarily hospitals, who already operate with very thin margins, and will be under
great financial pressure to raise their rates to pay for it, with resulting price pressure on health
insurance premiums.
• 2012: That excise tax increases to 3%.
• 2013: A separate 2.9% excise tax on medical devices will begin. The same pass-through will take
place, creating the same pressures on providers and on insurance premiums.
• 2014: An $8 billion fee on health insurance premiums kicks in. Obviously consumers will bear
this tax and their premiums will rise.
Because of all these costs, Obamacare is generally unsustainable. Here is one study that addresses that
issue:
Obamacare: The Real Price Tag is a Moving Target

3. As is usual for liberal-progressives, the element of coercion is an intrinsic ‘twin’ to their intentions, and it remains so in Obamacare. Beginning in 2014, everyone will face a penalty if they don’t purchase a health policy that meets the government’s definition of a ‘minimum essential’ level of health coverage. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, Section 1501.

a. It will be enforced by the IRS. Obamacare authorizes the hiring of 16,500 additional agents. “the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ...” 16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare | J.P. Freire | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

So, if you intend to remain a suppoorter of Obamacare, be sure to remain ignorant of its implications.

Okay, I will.

More lives will be saved for the uninsured at the expense of those with lots of money.

Those that worked really, really hard for "lots" of money will just stop working, because they have lots of money. That will leave no one to care for those that need medical attention. You cannot "order" people to spend their time "giving" medical treatment, and expect "quality" care. That would be slavery. BTW, doctors and nurses know how to take lives as well as save them. If the gov't does think it is going to institute slavery of the medical professions, the political class, and their mobs may find their numbers reduce drastically, after medical care.

 

[Greenbeard]

However, health care does not need to be reshaped and it amazes me to see how complicated the bill is. All they could have done was this: Effective immediately: Expand Medicaid eligibility; all individuals with income up to 133% of the poverty line qualify for coverage, including adults without dependent children. Just one statement.

That would be simpler but it wouldn't address the broken individual and small group health insurance markets faced by individuals and small businesses over 133% of the poverty line. It wouldn't give states the additional support they need as they expand their Medicaid programs, nor would it give them additional options within Medicaid for improving the quality of care and reining in costs. Indeed, it wouldn't have even paid for the additional federal share of the Medicaid expansion.

It wouldn't have instituted reforms to payment and service delivery in Medicare that are needed to put the program on a more sustainable long-term footing, nor would it have provided additional resources and authority to strengthen program integrity in public programs to step up the fight against fraud and abuse. It wouldn't have addressed workforce issues to start rectifying ongoing physician shortages.

The bill you're describing wouldn't have addressed health care itself--i.e. improving quality and tackling costs to move the system toward sustainability--and it would've left a significant chunk of the coverage picture unaddressed. The ACA did touch all of those areas, which is why it's not a one-sentence law.

The one that was put in place will not take the medical system toward "sustainability" (or the country either, for that matter). It is designed to destroy the middle class and divide the nation into the ruling elite, and the peasants.

Cool, thanks, Rush.

 

[logical4u]

That would be simpler but it wouldn't address the broken individual and small group health insurance markets faced by individuals and small businesses over 133% of the poverty line. It wouldn't give states the additional support they need as they expand their Medicaid programs, nor would it give them additional options within Medicaid for improving the quality of care and reining in costs. Indeed, it wouldn't have even paid for the additional federal share of the Medicaid expansion.

It wouldn't have instituted reforms to payment and service delivery in Medicare that are needed to put the program on a more sustainable long-term footing, nor would it have provided additional resources and authority to strengthen program integrity in public programs to step up the fight against fraud and abuse. It wouldn't have addressed workforce issues to start rectifying ongoing physician shortages.

The bill you're describing wouldn't have addressed health care itself--i.e. improving quality and tackling costs to move the system toward sustainability--and it would've left a significant chunk of the coverage picture unaddressed. The ACA did touch all of those areas, which is why it's not a one-sentence law.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from but that is what is frustrating about life in that everything has to be so complicated. Okay then, why can't there be universal health care with high quality for everyone then?

It isn't "complicated". It is hard. You work hard to find a job. You work hard to keep a job. You work hard to find a mate/house/happiness. Then you work hard to keep it. See, it is really, simple, not complicated.

 

[logical4u]

Obama's healthcare plan is the same plan the Republicans introduced in the early 1990's.

Now the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that they are against their own plan!

Personally I would prefer a system like the French have that is a combination of public and private insurance. Their plan is more fair and cheaper than ours.

You can read about it at this link....

The French Lesson In Health Care

Gotta love the documentary "Sicko" by Michael Moore!

I haven't seen it.

But what the French do is a combination of conservative and liberal ideas.

And it works.

I believe the survivor rates for major illnesses are still better under the current system in the USA.

 

[logical4u]

Your link goes along with what I am saying. The level of poverty and poor choices people make contribute to the lower numbers the the US health care system has. The elements of the system are the best in the world though.

Also, the literature does not show that preventative programs help bring down the cost of health care or improve the numbers in the "best" in the world competition. That is due to the above mentioned poor choices, poverty, generational obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc.

And that is why everyone deserves access to the best care possible.

Who is going to "give" you the best care possible? If some one donates to goodwill, do they give their best things, or do they give things that they have replaced with nicer things?
You are talking "service". Do you go out and "give" people service because they "deserve" it? How much "service" would you "give"? Do people buy top of the line vehicles and "give" them away? Do you expect the medical professionals that buy top of the line medical equipment (that means they have to pay for it) to "give" free passes for use of that equipment?

If you do, you really are an idiot.
Forcing people to "give" results in lower standards and poor quality.
It makes more bureaucrats, which leaves less money for the service. Repeat.

The people that have decades of experience in medical care will retire/leave the medical profession before they agree to be treated like slaves by the "entitled" class. That will leave the people that are stuck with student loans, and average to poor performers. Do you really think you will be getting the best medical care possible?

The bureaucrats will decide if and when to buy new medical equipment. If it works like the rest of the government purchasing, they will buy it, it will sit in storage until the warranty runs out, at which time they will finally have the funds to install it. Five, ten years can go by, if you needed it ten years ago, chances are, you don't need it any longer.

Are you seeing the picture yet, or will you have to live it, to understand how moronic it is to came your rights must be provided by other people. The guys that were alive over two hundred years ago understood, maybe you are evolution in reverse?

 

[logical4u]

Can't wait to see when rich folks start having the same probability of dying as a poor person. Whahahahaha!

The most honest thing you have said. You really aren't concerned about raising standards. You are envious and want to see others suffer. What a tiny, little, pathetic person you are.

 

[serenesam]

My apologies, I have sociopathic tendencies in which I have no control over derived from environmental conditioning.