Obama advisors seek rationed medical care

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong from start to finish. Your comment that we were lucky that he didn't die ten years from now was just plain illogical.

His government health care was great. He wasn't told to die. There were no death panels, there are no death panels, and yes, you're getting your information from Fox News.

You are clearly an idiot, unable to process simple information. Obamacare has not been fully implemented yet. That is why your father was lucky. IN 10 years when it is fully implemented his experience would have been substantially different. If I dont have a TV how am I getting my information from Fox News? Did you bug my house to find out? Creepy.
And here's some neg rep because you are an ass.

Someone who says that a person is lucky they died this year and not in ten years is not an expert on processing information.

Government health care is government health care. That's why I bring up Medicare. It's government health care. There's nothing in the bill about death panels, not now, not in ten years. You forget we live in a democracy.

Regarding the TV, no right winger on these boards ever admits to watching Fox News, but they always have the same misinformation.

First...this country is not a democracy. Our system is a representative republic.
Medicare after the PPACA will not resemble the Medicare of today.
PPACA guts half the funding for Medicare.
How that will work will be simple. The federal government will simply reduce reimbursements to medical professionals. This is part of the "efficiency" that Obama was talking about. Efficiency is another word for rationing.

 

[Greenbeard]

She an indigent patient yet is getting the best care. She is getting a pace maker and a defib implanted next week.
Of course she is on medicaid because she cannot afford to buy insurance.
You lefties just want taxpayer funded free shit.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to illustrate. That public insurance results in one "getting the best care"? Okay.

Medicare after the PPACA will not resemble the Medicare of today.
PPACA guts half the funding for Medicare.
How that will work will be simple. The federal government will simply reduce reimbursements to medical professionals. This is part of the "efficiency" that Obama was talking about. Efficiency is another word for rationing.

Not quite. If you want to see what Medicare looks like post-reform, start by looking at the ACA-inspired transformation that's occurring right now: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt.../180848-whats-next-for-medicare-spending.html

Fewer preventable readmissions, value-based purchasing, accountable care, fewer medical errors, less unwarranted variation in quality, use of electronic health records with clinical decision supports, better care coordination, and so on. It's what happens when world-class insurance takes the next step up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every experiment with Obamacare type care results in rationing and diminished quality of care. See my other thread around here for a recent example in Baltimore.
Every claim made for Obamacare has been a lie so far. Why should we believe any of it now?

 

[thereisnospoon]

She an indigent patient yet is getting the best care. She is getting a pace maker and a defib implanted next week.
Of course she is on medicaid because she cannot afford to buy insurance.
You lefties just want taxpayer funded free shit.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to illustrate. That public insurance results in one "getting the best care"? Okay.

Medicare after the PPACA will not resemble the Medicare of today.
PPACA guts half the funding for Medicare.
How that will work will be simple. The federal government will simply reduce reimbursements to medical professionals. This is part of the "efficiency" that Obama was talking about. Efficiency is another word for rationing.

Not quite. If you want to see what Medicare looks like post-reform, start by looking at the ACA-inspired transformation that's occurring right now: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt.../180848-whats-next-for-medicare-spending.html

Fewer preventable readmissions, value-based purchasing, accountable care, fewer medical errors, less unwarranted variation in quality, use of electronic health records with clinical decision supports, better care coordination, and so on. It's what happens when world-class insurance takes the next step up.

Unfortunate how you are not sure.
The example of my sister in law debunks the theory that poor people, in those words of a few other posters on this thread "can't get healthcare"...It also illustrates the point of how infuriating government bureaucracy can be. Because the government is inconsistent. For example, there are attorneys and entire law firms that dedicate their time to representing clients who find it impossible to navigate government systems such as Social Security Disability. People often have to wait TWO YEARS just to get someone to have a look at their case.
World class insurance? Only union members in public and private jobs get those cadillac programs. most of which have been found to be unsustainable. The rest of us get what we get.
Before you go off on a "see i told ya so", Obamacare is WORSE than what we have now. It costs more to the user, delivers less to medical care givers and lumps us all into one big group with all the federal government's bureaucratic weight crushing down on us.

 

[SAT2]

Your sister-in-law's situation illustrates that government health care is good quality care, as Greenbeard said.

The problem is that the working poor, and people with preexisting conditions, often cannot get affordable private insurance.

That is one thing that the ACA addresses. It gets more people into the insurance pool.

It gets the freeloaders, who don't buy insurance because they are in reasonably good health, who go in and "negotiate" a lower price for care on the backs of those of us who are insured, into the insurance pool with the rest of us responsible citizens.

"We lefties" aren't asking for "free shit". That doesn't even make sense, if you actually have a clue what the law says.

 

[Full-Auto]

Your sister-in-law's situation illustrates that government health care is good quality care, as Greenbeard said.

The problem is that the working poor, and people with preexisting conditions, often cannot get affordable private insurance.

That is one thing that the ACA addresses. It gets more people into the insurance pool.

It gets the freeloaders, who don't buy insurance because they are in reasonably good health, who go in and "negotiate" a lower price for care on the backs of those of us who are insured, into the insurance pool with the rest of us responsible citizens.

"We lefties" aren't asking for "free shit". That doesn't even make sense, if you actually have a clue what the law says.

Some one that doesnt buy insurance isnt a freeloader. You are the free loader forcing him to gamble so you have a lower price worm...........

 

[The Rabbi]

Your sister-in-law's situation illustrates that government health care is good quality care, as Greenbeard said.

The problem is that the working poor, and people with preexisting conditions, often cannot get affordable private insurance.

That is one thing that the ACA addresses. It gets more people into the insurance pool.

It gets the freeloaders, who don't buy insurance because they are in reasonably good health, who go in and "negotiate" a lower price for care on the backs of those of us who are insured, into the insurance pool with the rest of us responsible citizens.

"We lefties" aren't asking for "free shit". That doesn't even make sense, if you actually have a clue what the law says.

Some one that doesnt buy insurance isnt a freeloader. You are the free loader forcing him to gamble so you have a lower price worm...........

Exactly. The people who want their insurance costs lowered by forcing healthy people to buy something they dont want are the freeloaders, using the premiums from healthy people to offset the premiums from people who need health care.
Only with the left can something so obvious become the opposite.

 

[Greenbeard]

The example of my sister in law debunks the theory that poor people, in those words of a few other posters on this thread "can't get healthcare"...

Medicaid at present is a safety net with many holes. It is not, strictly speaking, a program for "the poor" because being poor is not enough to make one eligible. Medicaid has various categories that potential eligibles must fit into (e.g. a child, a pregnant woman, parents) and within those categories there will be income and potentially asset tests with thresholds that may be far below the poverty line.

Simply being poor has never been enough to make one eligible for Medicaid, except for certain categories protected at the federal level (namely children). That, however, is about to change.

Obamacare is WORSE than what we have now. It costs more to the user, delivers less to medical care givers and lumps us all into one big group with all the federal government's bureaucratic weight crushing down on us.

I don't know what "it" is. "ObamaCare" is a slogan, and while it's generally loosely understood to be a synonym for the ACA, in practice that's not how it used. So you'll have to be more specific about what policy changes you're referring to.

 

[SAT2]

Some one that doesnt buy insurance isnt a freeloader. You are the free loader forcing him to gamble so you have a lower price worm...........

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

If they are unable to buy insurance, then they are either poor or sick, and therefore not a freeloader.

Everyone uses health care. Everyone.

 

[Full-Auto]

Some one that doesnt buy insurance isnt a freeloader. You are the free loader forcing him to gamble so you have a lower price worm...........

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

If they are unable to buy insurance, then they are either poor or sick, and therefore not a freeloader.

Everyone uses health care. Everyone.

No they are not. You need to prove the premise The I said so doesnt do it for me, you being from the lying left, even less.

 

[Vaard]

there are two basic choices......

you either stop forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes to their emergancy rooms or you force everyone to have insurance.......

 

[Vaard]

Some one that doesnt buy insurance isnt a freeloader. You are the free loader forcing him to gamble so you have a lower price worm...........

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

If they are unable to buy insurance, then they are either poor or sick, and therefore not a freeloader.

Everyone uses health care. Everyone.

No they are not. You need to prove the premise The I said so doesnt do it for me, you being from the lying left, even less.

the premise is that hospitals have $5 aspirins and such because many people come to hospitals and recive medical care without insurance and then dont pay the bill, which forces the hospital to try and cover costs from those who do pay for their medical treatment, mostly thru insurance.........

so while everyone might not use healthcare, anyone who walks into an emergancy room gets treated regardless of their ability to pay.......

 

[SAT2]

Some one that doesnt buy insurance isnt a freeloader. You are the free loader forcing him to gamble so you have a lower price worm...........

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

If they are unable to buy insurance, then they are either poor or sick, and therefore not a freeloader.

Everyone uses health care. Everyone.

No they are not. You need to prove the premise The I said so doesnt do it for me, you being from the lying left, even less.

No, they are not...what? Freeloaders? I'm paying full price, I pay for health insurance, plus my deductible and copays, they go in and negotiate a lower price, but they aren't freeloaders? What are they? Why am I subsidizing their improvidence?

If someone cannot get insurance because it's too expensive for them, or they have a preexisting condition, then they are not freeloaders, they are victims of a corrupt system.

But the folks who BRAG that they don't have health insurance, and that they get their care on the cheap by telling the doctor's office "I can't pay that, I don't have insurance", they are freeloaders.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

what should happen to this person if they get ill ?

 

[SAT2]

there are two basic choices......

you either stop forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes to their emergancy rooms or you force everyone to have insurance.......

Or you have a public option, or national health care.

ER doctors and nurses were not happy turning patients away, you know. That goes against their basic drive to help others.

 

[SAT2]

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

what should happen to this person if they get ill ?

They should be treated. Being a freeloader isn't punishable by death.

But with the ACA, they will either buy a policy, or pay a fine. Freeloaders no more.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

what should happen to this person if they get ill ?

They should be treated. Being a freeloader isn't punishable by death.

But with the ACA, they will either buy a policy, or pay a fine. Freeloaders no more.

right freeloaders aren't motivated by ill health / death from lack of healthcare to self-responsibility

but a fine will do it

or do I just pay the fine and get your free treatment ?

 

[Vaard]

there are two basic choices......

you either stop forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes to their emergancy rooms or you force everyone to have insurance.......

Or you have a public option, or national health care.

ER doctors and nurses were not happy turning patients away, you know. That goes against their basic drive to help others.

yes, a public option or national healthcare is still forcing everyone to have insurance........

i am not saying anyone is happy about turning away people who need medical help...... but medical service cost money and while alot of hospitals are not out to make a profit, they are at least striving to break even......

i am just saying that if everyone is going to be allowed treatment, then everyone should share in the costs.......

 

[SAT2]

what should happen to this person if they get ill ?

They should be treated. Being a freeloader isn't punishable by death.

But with the ACA, they will either buy a policy, or pay a fine. Freeloaders no more.

right freeloaders aren't motivated by ill health / death from lack of healthcare to self-responsibility

but a fine will do it

or do I just pay the fine and get your free treatment ?

The fine is not motivation. The fine is to make a small dent in what they're costing the system.

there are two basic choices......

you either stop forcing hospitals to treat anyone who comes to their emergancy rooms or you force everyone to have insurance.......

Or you have a public option, or national health care.

ER doctors and nurses were not happy turning patients away, you know. That goes against their basic drive to help others.

yes, a public option or national healthcare is still forcing everyone to have insurance........

i am not saying anyone is happy about turning away people who need medical help...... but medical service cost money and while alot of hospitals are not out to make a profit, they are at least striving to break even......

"Not happy" doesn't cover it. "Morally outraged" is the phrase you're looking for.

i am just saying that if everyone is going to be allowed treatment, then everyone should share in the costs.......

Yes, they should. Thus the ACA.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, someone who could afford insurance, and chooses not to buy insurance, is a freeloader.

what should happen to this person if they get ill ?

They'll get treated and the medical provider will bill them. Why is this difficult?